Delhi District Court
Cbi vs S.K. Singh @Sunil Kumar Singh And Ors on 29 May, 2025
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-11 ,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CC No. 45/22
RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001-CBI-ND
CNR No DLCT11-000491-2022
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
1. S.K. SINGH @ Sunil Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Singh
The then Senior Manager (On deputation)
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd.
Patparganj, Delhi
R/o: B-1/196, Baba Colony
Burari, New Delhi-110094
2. SUBHASH GOEL @ SUBHASH
S/o late A.S. Goel
R/o H. No. 45, Vasant Enclave
New Delhi - 110057
Date of registration of FIR : 13.01.2022
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 06.08.2022
Arguments concluded on : 21.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.05.2025
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 123
:: 2 ::
Appearance :
For Prosecution : Sh. Avanish Kumar Chand, Ld. PP for the CBI.
For accused persons : Sh. Santosh Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel assisted by Sh.
Anjani Kumar Singh, Counsel for A-1 S.K. Singh.
Sh. Naveen Kumar, Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel.
JUDGMENT
1. A-1 S.K. Singh (public servant) and A-2 Subhash Goel (private individual) were sent up for trial on the accusations that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and in furtherance thereof, A-1 committed the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act by demanding an undue advantage and accepting the same through A-2.
Brief Facts as disclosed in the charge-sheet
2. The present FIR bearing RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001 came to be registered on a handwritten complaint containing allegations that a public servant was demanding bribe for not taking action against the occupant of a shed allotted by Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC). It is the case of prosecution that on 11.01.2022, PW-12 Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') came at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 123 :: 3 ::
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and submitted a handwritten complaint (Ex.PW10/A) alleging that A-1 S.K. Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh, a Senior Manager at DSIIDC, was demanding a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not sealing his shed bearing no. 2/13, DSIIDC Shed, Phase-II, Mangol Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the shed'). Complainant disclosed in the complaint that A-1 came at his shed around two months back and the officers who were accompanying him pasted a notice (Ex.PW3/A) on the shed to the effect that he was in unauthorised possession. He claimed to have met A-1 around few days back at his office and alleged that during this meeting, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not sealing his shed and directed him to get in touch with his contact 'Subhash'. He disclosed that A-1 wrote the name of his contact 'Subhash' & his mobile number '9810016555' on a slip (Ex.PW5/D) and handed it over to him. Since, he did not want to pay the bribe, therefore, he approached the office of CBI and lodged the complaint.
3. The prosecution's case proceeds further that in order to verify the allegations, the complaint was marked to PW-10 Suresh Chander Kushwaha, Sub-Inspector, ACB, CBI, Delhi (Verification officer), who decided that complainant shall meet A-1 S.K. Singh at his office on 11.01.2022 and their conversation shall be recorded CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 123 :: 4 ::
on a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR). PW-14 Sudesh Kumar, a Manager at Food Corporation of India, was joined as an independent witness and was directed to accompany the complainant as a shadow witness to overhear the conversation. The DVR containing a new memory card was kept in the upper left side pocket of the shirt of the complainant. After making the necessary preparations, the members of the verification team reached at a spot near the office of A-1 and parked their vehicle at a safe distance. On the directions of the CBI officials, the complainant and the independent witness went to the cabin of A-1 on the third floor of the building but the security guard stopped the independent witness from entering the cabin. The complainant entered the cabin and engaged in a conversation with A-1. Over this conversation, complainant told A-1 that he has managed to arrange a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs only and the remaining amount would be arranged later on. In response, A-1 reiterated the demand of bribe and directed the complainant to handover the same to his contact at Karol Bagh. The entire conversation was captured on the DVR. After the meeting was over, complainant went back to the spot where the CBI officials were waiting and narrated them the entire facts. Thereafter, the CBI officials headed back to their office but on the way, complainant received a call from mobile number 9990050466 of PW-3 Sh. Satish Chandra Verma, an officer of CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 123 :: 5 ::
DSIIDC, who disclosed him that he had reached at the shed with orders to seal the same. The complainant disclosed PW-3 that he had already discussed the matter with A-1 and in response, PW-3 told him that he would talk to 'Sahab' (A-1 S.K. Singh). After a while, complainant again received a call from PW-3, who disclosed him that he had discussed the matter with A-1 and the action would be taken after 2-4 days, in case, the documents of the shed were not shown to him. Complainant made these conversations by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode and the same were captured on the DVR. On reaching the office of CBI, copies of the conversations were prepared with the help of 'write blocker' and the same were played and transcripts were prepared in the presence of the complainant and the independent witness. The DVR and the memory card used for recording the conversation were sealed and a verification memo dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A) was prepared.
4. It is the case of prosecution that it was decided that verification should also be made about the status of A-2 Subhash Goel, who was disclosed as a 'contact' for handing over the bribe amount. CBI officials joined independent witness and made similar preparations on 12.01.2022 by putting a new memory card in the DVR. The verification team left the office of CBI at around 1500 hours and reached at a place near Karol Bagh. On the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 123 :: 6 ::
directions of the CBI officials, complainant made two calls at 1554 Hours and 1559 Hours on the mobile number (9810016555) of the contact but the calls remained answered. After a while, at around 1607 Hours, the contact reverted the call and told the complainant that he was not available at his office and he can come on the next day. Thereafter, complainant called A-1 at around 1620 hours and informed him about his conversation with the contact, on which, A-1 reiterated that he should go and meet him. The conversations, so held, were captured on the DVR as the mobile phone of the complainant was kept on the speaker mode. After returning to the office, CBI officials prepared a copy of the conversations with the help of 'Write Blocker' and the memory card was sealed. The entire verification proceedings were documented in the form of a verification memo dated 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B).
5. On verifying the allegations, RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001 was registered on 13.01.2022 under Section 7 of the PC Act. On registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to PW-16 Vijay A. Desai, Inspector, ACB, CBI (Trap Laying Officer), who constituted a trap team consisting of himself, complainant, two independent witnesses Sh. Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) and Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-15) and other officers of CBI. Preparations were made for executing the trap and apprehending the accused persons red CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 123 :: 7 ::
handed. The members of the trap team were introduced to each other and were briefed about the purpose of the trap. They were explained about the significance of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction of turning pink after coming in contact with a solution of sodium carbonate and water. Complainant was directed to bring a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs (to be offered as bribe) and he brought the same in the form of 51 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.2000/- each and 136 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- each. The numbers of currency notes was noted down in a memo and the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Instructions were given to the complainant not to touch the bribe amount and hand over the same to A-2 on his specific demand. PW-14 Suresh Kumar was again deputed as a shadow witness to accompany the complainant to the office of A-2. The sealed DVR, which was used in the verification proceedings, was opened and a new memory card was inserted therein on which introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded. A pre-trap handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C) was prepared and the members of the trap team were directed to proceed to the office of A-2 at Jhandewalan.
6. The prosecution's case unfolds that on the way to the office of A-2, at around 1245 Hours, complainant called him on his CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 123 :: 8 ::
mobile, who told him to come between 1330 Hours to 1345 Hours at his office bearing no. C-21, Flatted Factory Complex, Near Jhandewalan Mandir. At around 1415 Hours, the trap team reached at a spot near the office of A-2 and parked their vehicles near the underfoot bridge in front of Jhandewalan Mandir, which was just 100 yards ahead of the Flatted Factory Area of Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Complainant was briefed to approach A-2 Subhash Goel at his office to hand over the bribe money. The DVR was hidden in the front left side pocket of his shirt and the shadow witness was instructed to give a signal to the trap team on completion of the transaction. The complainant and PW-14 Sudesh Kumar went inside while the second independent witness (PW-15 Sushil Kumar) and the other members of the trap team took positions outside the office of A-2 at a safe distance. It has been disclosed that after the complainant handed over the bribe amount to A-2, PW-14 Sudesh Kumar came outside the office (at around 1445 Hours) and called on the mobile phone of PW-16 Insp. Vijay A. Desai. On receiving the call, the members of the trap team immediately went inside the office and apprehended A-2 while he was counting the bribe money.
7. The recovered currency notes were tallied with the memo and the same were sealed in the presence of independent witnesses.
CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 123:: 9 ::
Rough site plan was prepared. Separate washes of the right and left hand of A-2 were obtained and the colour of the solution of the right hand wash turned pink while the solution of the left hand wash remained colourless. The solution of the table wash also turned pink. The solutions were kept in separate bottles and each bottle was labeled and sealed. On being confronted, A-2 admitted having accepted the bribe on behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh. Complainant disclosed that at the time of accepting the bribe, A-2 inquired from him about the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- mentioning that A-1 S.K. Singh had conveyed him that he would be delivering a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. He further disclosed that after accepting the bribe, A-2 contacted A-1 over his mobile phone and informed him that he had brought a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs only. These calls and conversations were also captured on the DVR.
8. The prosecution's case proceeds further that on the directions of PW-16 Vijay A. Desai, A-2 Subhash Goel again called A-1 S.K. Singh on his mobile phone at 1520 Hours and conveyed him about accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs to which he replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". This call was made by A-2 by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode and the same was captured on a new memory card with the help of the DVR. Thereafter, search was carried out at the house of A-2 but nothing CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 123 :: 10 ::
incriminating was recovered. Subsequently, A-1 was arrested from his office on 14.01.2022.
9. Necessary documentation was done and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, copies of conversations prepared through 'write blocker' were played on a laptop and transcripts of the same were prepared on 18.01.2022 in the presence of complainant and the independent witnesses. The specimen voice samples of the complainant and accused persons were obtained and the same were sent to CFSL for comparison with the recorded conversations. The bottles containing solutions of the hands and table wash were also sent to the CFSL. The original file pertaining to the shed was seized from the office of DSIIDC. Specimen handwriting as well as the admitted handwriting of A-1 was obtained and sent for comparison to the CFSL with the handwriting on the Slip. The chemical examination report of CFSL returned a positive finding about presence of phenolphthalein powder in the hand washes and the table wash. The CFSL also returned a positive finding that the handwriting on the slip was of A-2. The Customer Application Forms (CAFs) and the Calls Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile phones of the the employees of DSIIDC who went to seal the shed of the complainant as well as those of the complainant and accused CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 123 :: 11 ::
persons were obtained. Since, A-1 S.K. Singh was a public servant, therefore, the requisite sanction for his prosecution was obtained under Section 19 of PC Act (Ex.PW2/A). The investigation concluded and the charge-sheet was filed in the court.
10. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge-sheet and the accused persons were summoned. Copies of the charge-sheet and the documents were supplied to the accused persons.
Arguments were heard and the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor under Section 7 of PC Act read with Section 120 B of IPC against both the accused persons and a separate charge was framed under Section 7 of PC Act against A-1 S.K. Singh. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the charge was altered and a charge under Section 120B read with Section 7 of the PC Act was framed against both the accused persons.
Prosecution Witnesses
11. Eighteen (18) prosecution witnesses were examined.
Sanctioning Authority 11.1 PW-2 Sh. S.K. Jain, Director, Centralized Accidental Trauma Services (official awarding the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act) deposed that the sanction was granted by him after CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 123 :: 12 ::
due application of mind. He mentioned that he perused all the relevant documents and granted the sanction. The sanction dated
12.05.2022 is Ex.PW2/A. Complainant.
11.2 PW-12 Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (complainant) supported the prosecution's case. He deposed on the aspect of demand as well as the acceptance of the bribe. He gave a detailed account of the verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 & 12.01.2022. He mentioned that A-1 S.K. Singh demanded from him a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not sealing his shed. He stated that he handed over the bribe amount of Rs 1.70 lakhs to A-2 and the same was recovered from his possession. He narrated the chain of events of 13.01.2022 and identified his signatures on memos prepared at various stages of the investigation. His detailed testimony has been discussed in the later part of the judgment.
Independent Witnesses 11.3 PW-13 Sh. Vivek Prakash, Assistant Engineer, DDA, Delhi (participated in verification proceedings of 12.01.2022) supported and corroborated the version of the complainant. He deposed that complainant called A-2 Subhash Goel on the mobile number mentioned on the slip but the call remained unanswered. He deposed that after a while complainant received a call from the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 123 :: 13 ::
said number and the conversation over the said call was recorded on the DVR. He deposed that the captured conversation was played at the office of CBI and the transcripts of the same were prepared.
11.4 PW-14 Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Manager, Food Corporation of India (participated in the verification proceedings of 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 as well as in the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022) supported the prosecution's case and gave a detailed account of the proceedings of each day. He corroborated the version of the complainant and independent witnesses. He deposed that he accompanied the complainant during the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. He gave an account of the preparations made by the CBI officials before carrying out the verification proceedings. He mentioned that the conversations during the verification proceedings of 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 were recorded with the help of a DVR and the same were subsequently played at the office of CBI. He mentioned that the transcripts of the conversations were prepared in his presence. He also gave a detailed account of the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022 mentioning that he was accompanying the complainant and the bribe money was handed over to A-2 in his presence. He deposed that on completion of the transaction, he gave the pre-decided signal to the trap team and the members of the team entered the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 123 :: 14 ::
office and apprehended A-2. He identified his signatures on the verification proceedings, arrest memo, transcripts, site plan as well as other documents.
11.5 PW-15 Sh. Sushil Kumar, Upper Division Clerk, DSIIDC Headquarters (participated in trap proceedings of 13.01.2022) was a member of the trap team. He narrated the chain of events of 13.01.2022. He deposed that complainant and the independent witness Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) entered the office of A-2 Subhash Goel while the other members of the trap team took position outside the office. He deposed about the recovery mentioning that he entered the office of A-2 along with the other members of the trap team after receiving the signal of Sudesh Kumar. He deposed that on entering the office, he saw that A-2 was counting the currency notes. He mentioned that the hand washes and table wash were obtained by the CBI officials. He mentioned that A-2 Subhash Goel informed A-1 over mobile phone that he has received the bribe money on his behalf and in response thereof, A-1 S.K. Singh replied, "okay". He gave an account of the investigation and identified his signatures on the memos prepared during the various stages of the investigation.
Employees of DSIIDC 11.6 PW-3 Satish Chand Verma, In-Charge Sub Office, CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 123 :: 15 ::
DSIIDC supported the prosecution's case. He disclosed about the nature of his duties and mentioned that he went to the shed of complainant on 11.01.2022 on the oral directions of A-1 S.K. Singh. He deposed having met the son of the complainant at the shed and mentioned about his conversation with the complainant over a phone call. He mentioned that after reaching the shed, he met the son of the complainant, who gave him the mobile number of the complainant. He mentioned that he connected a call to the complainant from his mobile phone and disclosed him that he should show him the documents of the shed. He stated that the complainant told him that he had already spoken to A-1 in that regard and thereafter, he connected a call to A-1 from the mobile phone of Gautam Kar (PW-4). He disclosed that over this call, A-1 told him not to seal the shed as the complainant would be producing the documents within two days. He mentioned that he also visited the shed of the complainant on a previous occasion on 31.12.2021 and pasted a notice thereon at the instance of A-1.
11.7 PW-4 Gautam Kar, Multi-Tasking Staff, DSIIDC is the officer, who went to the shed of the complainant on 11.01.2022 along with Satish Chand Verma (PW-3). He deposed that he visited the shed of complainant on the directions of A-1. He mentioned having met the son of the complainant during the said visit. He CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 123 :: 16 ::
stated that on reaching the shed, the son of the complainant was directed to show the documents but he failed to do so. He mentioned that the son of the complainant disclosed him that he had already spoken to A-1 in connection with the said matter. He deposed that thereafter, Satish Chand Verma took his mobile phone and connected a call to A-1. He conveyed that after speaking with A-1, Satish Chand Verma told the son of complainant that he may show the documents of the shed in 2-3 days. He disclosed his mobile number as 8447650902. He stated that on an earlier occasion, a notice was pasted at the shed of the complainant on 31.12.2021 by Satish Chand Verma and he was also accompanying him during the said visit.
11.8 PW-5 Sheetal Prasad, AG-III, CWC Division, DSIIDC is the officer who handed over the file pertaining to the shed of complainant to the CBI officials. He deposed that CBI officials came to the office of DSIIDC on 13.01.2022 and seized the file vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the handwriting of A-1 on the slip (Ex.PW5/D). He identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW5/A whereby the file was seized by the CBI.
11.9 PW-11 Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal, Divisional Manager, DSIIDC (Witness identifying the voice and handwriting of A-1) deposed that A-1 S.K. Singh used to work under his control and CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 123 :: 17 ::
supervision. He identified the handwriting of A-1 on the note sheets in the file of the shed which are Ex.PW5/B (colly.) and Ex.PW3/D3 (D-13; pages-59 to 61). He also identified the handwriting of A-1 on the slip Ex.PW5/D. He deposed that he was well acquainted with the handwriting of A-1 as he used to work under him. He mentioned that A-1 had no power to seal the shed and the said power was vested with the Estate Manager.
Employee of A-2 Subhash Goel 11.10 PW-18 Chanderpal Tomar (Employee of A-2 Subash Goel) identified the voice of A-2 Subhash Goel in the tape recorded conversations. He deposed that he had been working at the office of A-2 since the year 2013. He mentioned about his visit to the office of CBI on 18.02.2022 and stated that on the said occasion, the recorded conversations were played and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified his signatures on the transcripts. The competence of this witness to identify the voice of A-2 has remained unchallenged.
Nodal Officers and Formal Witness 11.11 PW-6 Pawan Singh (Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone) deposed that he handed over the CAFs and CDRs of mobile numbers 8447650902 and 8802020033 to the CBI officials along with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 123
:: 18 ::
The CAFs of these mobile numbers are Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/E while the CDRs are Ex.PW6/F (colly).
11.12 PW-7 Rajiv Vashisht (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel) deposed that he handed over the CAFs, Cell Tower Locations and CDRs of mobile numbers 9910767064 (used by complainant), 9810016555 (used by A-2) & 9990050466 (used by Satish Chand Verma) to the CBI officials along with the requisite certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The CAF of the mobile number of A-2 is MarkPW7/1; of complainant is Ex.PW7/E; and of Satish Chand Verma is Ex.PW7/G. While the CDR of A-2 is Ex.PW7/C;
of complainant is Ex.PW7/F; and of Satish Chand Verma is Ex.PW7/H. 11.13 PW-1 Amit Soni (Son of Sh. Satish Chand Verma) deposed that although, the SIM card of mobile number 9990050466 was issued in his name but his father Satish Chand Verma was using the same.
Expert Witnesses from CFSL 11.14 PW-8 Smt. Alka Gupta, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents), CFSL, Lodhi Road (Official giving report on the handwriting of the slip) supported her finding on the handwritten slip Ex.PW5/D. She deposed that the handwriting on the slip was CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 123 :: 19 ::
compared with the specimen and admitted handwriting of A-1 S.K. Singh. She mentioned that she compared all the documents and found that the handwriting on the slip was that of A-1. The handwriting report is Ex.PW8/B. 11.15 PW-9 Smt. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemical Examiner, CFSL, Lodhi Road (Official giving report on the hands and table washes) supported the opinion given by her about the presence of phenolphthalein in the examined solutions of hand washes and table wash. She deposed that the seals on all the bottles containing the solutions were found intact before they were opened for the chemical examination. She mentioned that she carried out the chemical examination and prepared the report Ex.PW9/B. She concluded in her report that phenolphthalein was found present in the solutions contained in all the bottles. The bottles containing the solutions are Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E. Witnesses of Verification Proceedings and Investigation 11.16 PW-10 Sh. Suresh Chander Kushwaha, Sub-Inspector, ACB, CBI (the official carrying out the verification proceedings) gave a detailed account of the verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. He deposed that in order to verify the allegations contained in the written complaint, an independent CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 123 :: 20 ::
witness was joined and preparations were made to record the conversation between the accused persons and the complainant. He narrated the manner in which the complainant and the independent witness Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) were sent to the office of A-1 S.K. Singh on 11.01.2022. He deposed that the conversation pertaining to the demand made by A-1 was recorded on the DVR. He mentioned that the DVR and the memory card were sealed and the seal was handed over to an independent witness. He deposed that the independent witness could not enter the cabin of A-1 as he was stopped by the gate keeper but the independent witness saw the complainant talking to A-1 through the glass of the cabin. He deposed that in a similar manner, complainant and the independent witness were directed to verify the allegations by paying visit at the office of A-2 on 12.01.2022. He conveyed that complainant could not meet A-2 on 12.01.2022 as he was not present at his office but their conversations over the mobile phone were captured with the help of a DVR. He stated that after each verification proceeding, a copy of the recorded conversation was prepared with the help of a 'write blocker' and the same was played on a laptop and the transcripts were prepared. He deposed that the present FIR was registered after verifying the allegations. The conversations recorded on the DVR during the verification proceedings of 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 were played in the court and he CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 123 :: 21 ::
identified the same as the conversations which were captured on the DVR at the relevant time. The verification reports dated 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 are Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B respectively.
11.17 PW-16 Vijay A. Desai, Inspector, ACB, CBI (Trap Laying Officer) gave an account of the manner in which the trap was laid.
He gave a detailed account of the recovery. He mentioned that on receiving the signal of Sudesh Kumar, the members of the trap entered the office of A-2 and found him counting the currency notes. He deposed that the bribe money was recovered from the table top and the serial numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW10/C. He deposed about the documents prepared at each stage of the investigation and identified his signatures on the said documents. He mentioned that on his directions, A-2 called on the mobile phone of A-1 and informed him that he had received the bribe and in response thereof, A-1 replied, "okay". He stated that the phone call was made from the mobile phone of A-2 and the conversation was captured on the DVR. He deposed that the conversations captured over the DVR were played and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He deposed that after conclusion of the trap proceedings, the investigation was transferred to Inspector CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 123 :: 22 ::
Davinder Kumar.
11.18 PW-17 Davinder Kumar, Inspector, ACB, CBI (Investigating Officer) justified the investigation. He deposed that the sealed bottles containing the hand washes and the table wash were sent to the CFSL. He mentioned that the specimen and admitted handwritings of A-1 S.K. Singh were obtained and the same were sent for comparison to the CFSL. He deposed that the complainant and the independent witnesses were called to the CBI office on 18.02.2022 and the recorded conversations were played over a laptop. He mentioned that the transcripts of the recorded conversations were prepared. He deposed that the Customer Application Form (CAF) and the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile phones of the complainant, accused persons and other officials of DSIIDC were obtained. He mentioned that he recorded statements of witnesses and collected the relevant documents. He deposed about obtaining the sanction for the prosecution of A-1 and filling of the charge-sheet.
Statements of Accused Persons
12. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence and took the defence of false implication. A-1 S.K. Singh denied having CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 123 :: 23 ::
demanded bribe from the complainant and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. He mentioned that at around the time of alleged incident, a drive was going on in his department to recover the dues from the allottees of the shed who were in huge arrears of the licence fee. He stated that huge amount was due against the complainant and he falsely implicated him in the present matter to avoid the payment. On the other hand, A-2 Subhash Goel came up with an explanation that the complainant approached him for preparing the documents of his shed. He admitted that he came in contact with the complainant through the reference of A-1. He denied the recovery and mentioned that the same had been planted upon him. He admitted that complainant came to his office along with a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs but claimed that he brought the said amount for preparing the documents of the shed. He conveyed that the complainant simply kept the currency notes on his table and he neither touched nor counted those currency notes. He admitted having made a phone call to the A-1 after the recovery of the bribe but stated that the call was made by him after being coerced by the CBI officials. He raised question mark over the authenticity of the verification proceedings as well as other documents stated to have been prepared at the various stages of investigation.
13. No defence witness was examined by A-2 but A-1 examined CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 123 :: 24 ::
six defence witnesses. A-1 S.K. Singh sought liberty to examine himself as a defence witness by filing an application under Section 315 of Cr. P.C. and the same was allowed. He examined five (5) defence witnesses including himself.
Defence Witnesses
14. DW-1 S.K. Singh (A-1) denied the demand and acceptance of bribe. He presented a defence that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and other shed owners who were in arrears of licence fee. He conveyed that around the period of the alleged incident, a drive was going on to recover the arrears of licence fee from the occupants of the sheds allotted by DSIIDC. He mentioned that he mounted pressure on the complainant and other occupants to pay the arrears of licence fee and on account of this reason, they falsely implicated him in the present case. He admitted meeting the complainant at his office but presented a different version of the incident. His detailed testimony has been discussed in the later part of the judgment.
14.1 DW-2 A.K. Singh, Under Secretary, Department of Fisheries deposed that at the time of incident, he was working on deputation as a Divisional Manager at DSIIDC. He conveyed that there were only two sources of income of DSIIDC i.e. land revenue and the revenue from the liquor vends. He mentioned that during CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 24 of 123 :: 25 ::
the year 2021, the revenue from the liquor vends dried up on account of the change in the policy of the Government of Delhi and therefore, rigorous efforts were started to recover the arrears from the allottees of the sheds of DSIIDC. He mentioned that for achieving the said purpose, targets for recovery were fixed for the individual officers of DSIIDC. He mentioned that A-1 joined DSIIDC in the year 2021 and his promotion was under consideration. He has not deposed anything further.
14.2 DW-3 Smt. Pooja Sarin, Data Entry Operator, DSIIDC deposed that there were arrears of around Rs.50 lakhs against the sheds of the complainant. She mentioned that directions were given by the Finance Department to issue notices to the shed occupants who fell under the category of high dues i.e. against whom recovery amount was more than Rs.5 lakhs. She mentioned that apart from complainant, an occupant named Ram Preet Yadav was also under the category of high dues recovery.
14.3 DW-4 Sarvendra Kumar Singh, Chief Manager, DSIIDC deposed that at the relevant time, A-1 used to report to him as he was working as a Chief Manager. He conveyed about the hierarchy of management in DSIIDC and mentioned that In-charge Sub Office (ISO) was in the lowest rung of the management.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 25 of 123
:: 26 ::
14.4 DW-5 Surendra Kumar, Section Officer, DSIIDC deposed that there was huge outstanding amount against most of the allottees of the sheds in Mangol Puri-II Zone of DSIIDC. He placed on record the statements of arrears of eight sheds including the shed of the complainant. The statements of arrears are Ex.DW5/A (colly.).
Final Arguments
15. Arguments were heard on behalf of CBI as well as both the accused persons. The accused persons also submitted written submissions.
Arguments on behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh
16. Sh. Santosh Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 argued that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case and the accused needs to be acquitted. He has mentioned that prosecution has not been able to establish the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act. Counsel has contended that in order to establish a charge under Section 7 of PC Act, the prosecution was under an obligation to prove demand as well as acceptance of the bribe. He has mentioned that it is a settled law that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and recovery, in itself, is not sufficient to establish the charge.
He has mentioned that in so far as the ingredients of the offence CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 26 of 123 :: 27 ::
are concerned, there is not much change in the position even after the amendment carried out by way of Amendment Act of 2018. He has contended that the evidence is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. He has argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable. He has mentioned that there is no evidence to conclusively establish that accused demanded bribe either on 11.01.2022 or any day prior thereto.
16.1 Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case on the aspect of demand. He has contended that the independent witnesses have categorically mentioned that the demand was not raised in their presence and there is no other evidence to substantiate the allegation that A-1 demanded bribe from the complainant. He has stated that the testimonies of the defence witnesses demonstrate that complainant was in huge arrears of licence fee and he falsely implicated A-1 to avoid the payment. He has argued that it is settled proposition that the testimonies of defence witnesses should be treated at par with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He mentioned that the testimonies of defence witnesses should not be doubted merely because they are from the department of A-1.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 27 of 123
:: 28 ::
16.2 He has contended that prosecution has failed to examine all the officials who participated in the trap proceedings and in view thereof, an adverse inference needs to be drawn. Counsel has pointed out that there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He has contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of the complainant but the same is not reliable. He has stated that complainant falls under the category of an interested witness and it is unsafe to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of such a witness. He has contended that it can be seen from the transcripts of the recorded conversation of 11.01.2022 that no demand was raised by A-1. He has argued that complainant wanted to avoid the payment of arrears of licence fee and it was because of the said reason that he falsely implicated A-1 in the present matter.
16.3 Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that there are discrepancies in the documents when the same are read in the light of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He has mentioned that forensic voice examination report demonstrates that auditory analysis of questioned recording was not done by comparing it with the analysis of the specimen voice and no other examination was carried out with respect to the original DVR. He has mentioned that no reliance can be placed on the recordings copied from the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 28 of 123 :: 29 ::
memory card without the examination of the original device. He has contended that even otherwise, the voice recording cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence. He has further argued that there are serious infirmities in the investigation. He stated that prosecution has failed to establish that the memory cards were properly sealed by the investigating officer. He has mentioned that the memory cards were opened and sealed on various occasions but the chain of custody was not maintained. He has mentioned that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to preserve the sanctity of the copied data of the memory cards as the hash values were not collected. He has stated that the investigation was done in a casual manner and there are discrepancies between the time mentioned on the memos and the chain of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
16.4 Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that the Handwriting and the Chemical Examination Reports are not reliable. He has raised question mark over the competence of the handwriting expert and the methodology adopted by her for carrying out the examination. He has mentioned that it was obligatory for the investigating agency to mix unknown voices with the alleged specimen voice of A-1 but no effort was made to undertake the said exercise and resultantly, the report has become inadmissible. He CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 29 of 123 :: 30 ::
has mentioned that there is an inordinate delay in the registration of FIR. He has stated that as per the prosecution's case, the verification proceedings were concluded on 12.01.2022 but the FIR was registered on the next day. He has mentioned that prosecution has failed to tender any explanation for the delay.
16.5 Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that there is no evidence to establish the angle of criminal conspiracy. He has argued that the prosecution was duty bound to establish that there was meeting of mind of the accused persons but no evidence has been led to establish this key ingredient of criminal conspiracy. He has also challenged the validity of the sanction mentioning that the same was granted in a mechanical manner. He has contended that the officer granting the sanction admitted in cross-examination that he did not peruse the tape recorded conversations before granting the sanction. He has argued that the entire material was not placed before the sanctioning authority and the sanction was granted without application of mind. He has argued that there is evidence to substantiate the defence taken by A-1 that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant. He has mentioned that there is evidence to show that complainant was in huge arrears of rent and he falsely implicated A-1. He has contended that the story of the prosecution is doubtful and the accused needs to be acquitted. In CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 30 of 123 :: 31 ::
order to support his submissions, Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in the matters of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 2 SCR 997, Sudesh Kaushik Vs. CBI 2022 SCC Online Del 4300, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State through CBI ILR (2014) 111 Delhi 2331 and Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Supp) SCC 611.
Arguments on behalf of A-2 Subhash Goel
17. Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel argued more or less on the lines of the arguments advanced on behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh. He has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 7 of The PC Act. He has contended that the prosecution came up with a story that A-2 entered into a conspiracy with A-1 S.K. Singh but there is no evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy was hatched at any point of time. He has argued that although, A-1 and A-2 were known to each other but this fact, in itself, is not sufficient to establish the angle of criminal conspiracy. He has contended that there are various loopholes in the prosecution's story and the recovery has been planted upon A-2. He has contended that the sanction for the prosecution of A-1 is defective as the official awarding the sanction was not competent to do so. He has CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 31 of 123 :: 32 ::
mentioned that the sanction was awarded in a mechanical manner without application of mind and the sanctioning authority blindly awarded the sanction on the basis of the draft provided by the CBI.
17.1 He has mentioned that the complainant was in huge arrears of licence fee and he approached A-2 for preparing the documents of the shed. He claimed that the amount brought by the complainant was meant for the documents of the shed and it was not towards the alleged bribe. He has mentioned that the documents shown to have been prepared by the investigating agency are ante-timed. He has stated that PW-13 Vivek Prakash and PW-14 Sudesh Kumar are stock witnesses and no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of such witnesses. He has claimed that although, the complainant placed the money on the table of A-2 but he never accepted the same. He mentioned that A-2 neither touched nor counted the currency notes. He has mentioned that the officials of the trap team caught hold of the palms of A-2 and transferred the traces of phenolphthalein powder on his hands for creating false evidence. He has argued that there is evidence to demonstrate that the CBI officials tried to execute the trap on 12.01.2022 and when the trap failed, they gave it a colour of verification proceedings. He has contended that it can be seen from the record that complainant brought the currency notes (to be CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 32 of 123 :: 33 ::
offered as bribe) on 12.01.2022 and handed over the same to the CBI officials. He has mentioned that there is no evidence to show that the chain of custody of these currency notes remained unbroken.
17.2 Counsel has argued that there are various contradictions in the testimony of the complainant while the testimonies of independent witnesses are unreliable. He has mentioned that the complainant was anticipating an action against the shed and wanted to avoid the payment of the arrears of the licence fee. He has contended that complainant falsely implicated the accused persons because of the said reason. He has mentioned that the complainant falls under the category of an interested witness and his testimony must be read with caution. He has stated that there is no reliable evidence to corroborate the version of the complainant.
He has contended that the reports of the chemical examiner and handwriting expert are not reliable. He has argued that there is evidence to show that the solution of the table wash remained colourless but the chemical examiner has given a positive report about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the said solution. He has stated that the chemical examiner has furnished a report in a mechanical manner without performing any tests and the report needs to be discarded. He has argued that the report of the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 33 of 123 :: 34 ::
handwriting expert also needs to be discarded. He has mentioned that the specimen voice samples and the specimen handwriting were obtained in an illegal manner. He has stated that no other handwriting except the handwriting of A-1 was sent for comparison with the handwriting found on the slip. He has submitted that the handwriting expert has given the report in a pre- conceived manner.
17.3 Counsel has argued that there are serious infirmities in the investigation. He has stated that prosecution has failed to establish that the memory cards were properly sealed by the investigating officer. He has mentioned that the prosecution came up with the story that the memory cards were sealed and the seal was handed over to an independent witness but the story does not inspire confidence. He has stated that the memory cards were opened and sealed on various occasions but the chain of custody was not maintained. He has mentioned that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to preserve the sanctity of the data copied from the memory cards as the hash values were not collected. He has stated that the investigation was done in a casual manner and there are discrepancies in the time mentioned on the memos and the chain of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses. He has mentioned that the investigating officer failed to carry out CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 34 of 123 :: 35 ::
investigation about the outstanding dues of the shed and the investigation was carried out in an arbitrary manner. He has mentioned that prosecution has failed to prove the charges and A-2 should be acquitted.
17.4 In order to support these submissions, Counsel for A-2 has relied on the decisions in the matters of M.S. Mohiddin Vs. Unknown AIR 1952 MAD 561, Bharat Raj Meena Vs. CBI Crl.
Appeal No. 590/2016, Rao Shiv Rahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322, Ramjanam Singh Vs. The State of Bihar (1954) 2 SCC 655, Karim Kunju Vs. State 1971 KLT 672, Harish Kumar Vs. State (2016) 2 DLT (Crl.) 642, Virendernath Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 (11) SCC, Suraj Mal Vs. State 1979 (4) SCC 725, State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1586, State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh (2005) 3 SCC 59, Gannu Vs. State of Punjab 2017 SCC Online P&H 4660, Babubhai Vs. State of Gujrat (2010) 12 SCC 254, State Vs. Bashir Ahmed & Ors. 23 (1983) DLT 486, State Vs. Mohd. Afzal & Ors. 2003 (3) JCC 1669, Parkash Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 1, Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626, Jai Narayan Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 259/2007, Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (2023) 4 SCC 731,Soundarajan Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 35 of 123 :: 36 ::
1592/ 2022, K. Shanthamma Vs. The State of Telangana Crl. Appeal No. 261/2022, State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153, Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. The State of A.P. (2024) 10 SCC 489, Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of H.P. (2012) 13 SCC 552 and State Vs. G. Kaleeswaran 2020 SCC Online Mad 6705.
Arguments on behalf of Prosecution
18. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to establish that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed the alleged offence. He has mentioned that complainant has fully supported the prosecution's case and his testimony has remained un- impeached. He has argued that independent witnesses have also supported and corroborated the testimony of the complainant on the material aspects. He has mentioned that although, there are minor discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant but the same are inconsequential. He has contended that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of a witness but the same do not raise any doubt over his veracity. He has argued that the testimony of the complainant also finds corroboration from the recorded conversations. He has mentioned that the testimonies CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 36 of 123 :: 37 ::
of the complainant and independent witnesses, read in the light of the transcripts of the recorded conversations, leave no scope for doubt that A-1 demanded the bribe and A-2 received and accepted it from the complainant on his behalf. He has argued that the expert opinion has confirmed that the handwriting on the slip was of A-1. He has contended that there is evidence to show that A-2 accepted the bribe from complainant on behalf of A-1. He has mentioned that there is overwhelming evidence to prove the charges.
18.1 Ld. PP for CBI has further argued that complainant is an honest and truthful witness. He has argued that the testimony of the complainant is reliable and there is no reason to doubt his version.
He has argued that the currency notes were recovered from the possession of A-2 and the independent witness has also confirmed that the bribe was handed over in his presence. He mentioned that the traces of phenolphthalein powder were found not only in the hand washes of A-2 but also in the table wash. He stated that the CFSL has returned a positive finding about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the examined solutions and this fact further corroborates the version of the complainant that the bribe was accepted by A-2 on behalf of A-1.
18.2 Ld. PP for CBI has argued that although minor infirmities have been pointed out in the investigation but the same do not effect CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 37 of 123 :: 38 ::
the outcome of the trial. He has argued that accused persons do not stand to gain any advantage merely because of the reason that the investigation could have been done in a more meticulous manner. He mentioned that the investigating officer and the members of the trap team have supported the prosecution's case. He stated that these witnesses have also corroborated the version of the complainant.
18.3 Ld. PP for CBI has argued that there is evidence to show that the accused persons, complainant and other officers of DSIIDC were using the mobile phones on which conversations were made.
He has submitted that the CDRs of these mobile phones demonstrate that the calls were made at the relevant time as the same stand duly reflected in the CDRs. He has mentioned that the version of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant does not inspire confidence. He mentioned that no prudent man would go to the extent of taking pains of falsely implicating a public servant. He has stated that each stage of investigation was duly documented and the documents have been proved during trial. He has mentioned that the sanctity of the case property was preserved by sealing it at various stages. He has stated that there was no possibility of tampering with the sealed case property. He has mentioned that CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 38 of 123 :: 39 ::
charges against both the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they should be convicted.
19. I have perused the record in the light of the respective arguments and the judgments relied on by the parties.
Analysis & Findings Legal Provisions and Ingredients of Section 7 of The PC Act
20. Before evaluating the evidence, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant legal provisions. It is the case of prosecution that accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act. Section 7 of The PC Act, as amended by way of an amendment, which came into effect from 26.07.2018, reads as under : -
"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed - Any public servant who, -
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 39 of 123 :: 40 ::
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.-A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.-For the purpose of this section,-
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."
21. It can be seen that Section 20 of The PC Act provides for a CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 40 of 123 :: 41 ::
legal presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. The Section reads as under:-
"20. Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11"
22. It has been the uniform view of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. This interpretation was given by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka" (2013) 3 SCC 721 by making the following observations:
"It is well settled in law that demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the Act and it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that there was an illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof".CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 41 of 123
:: 42 ::
23. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152, the Apex Court summarised the well settled law on the subject in the following para:
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder".
24. In the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao (2009) 15 SCC 200, the Supreme Court expressed as under:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 42 of 123 :: 43 ::
of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt".
25. It is the settled proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused always remains on the prosecution and it does not shift at any stage of the trial. However, by means of a presumption provided under Section 20 of The PC Act, the onus of proof would shift on the accused, in case, it is shown that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or obtain any undue advantage. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India that even to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of The PC Act, it is essential that the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe must be established. In the matter of B. Jayaraj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, the Apex Court has held as under:
"9...In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 43 of 123 :: 44 ::
13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent".
26. In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2023 (4) SCC 731, the Supreme Court of India evaluated the provisions of Section 7 of The PC Act, as it stood prior to the amendment, and summarised the legal position as under:
"xxx
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 44 of 123 :: 45 ::
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.
In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d),
(i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 45 of 123 :: 46 ::
accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal.
Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 46 of 123 :: 47 ::
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
xxx"
27. The amended provisions of Section 7 of The PC Act came to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Shanthamma Vs State of Telangana (Crl. Appeal No.261/2022, decided on 21.02.2022) wherein it was observed that the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The Supreme Court reiterated that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. The court made the following observations in para-7 of the judgment :
"We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the case of 'P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another' (2015) 10 SCC 152, this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject in paragraph 23 which reads thus:CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 47 of 123
:: 48 ::
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
28. In the mater of Shrikant Vs State of Karnataka Crl. Petition No.101560 of 2023, decided on 20.12.2023, the High Court of Karnataka compared and examined the pre-amended and post-amended provisions of 7 of the PC Act as well as the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in various judgments and held that in so far as the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act are concerned, be it pre-amended or post- amended, proof of demand and acceptance of gratification is sine quo non for establishing the allegations. The court held that in case, there is demand but no acceptance, it would not make an offence under Section 7 of The PC Act and if there is acceptance but no demand, still it would not be an offence under the said Section. It held that an act alleged under Section 7 of The PC Act should have CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 48 of 123 :: 49 ::
both the ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance of gratification.
29. Thus, it can be seen that the Supreme Court of India has reiterated in various judicial pronouncements that in order to bring home a charge under Section 7 of The PC Act, there must be a demand and acceptance of the gratification. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. Now, let us examine the evidence to see if the prosecution has been able to establish both the ingredients of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of illegal gratification. However, before doing that, I deem it fit to deal with the common argument of the accused persons about the defective sanction.
Sanction
30. It is the prosecution's case that A-1 S.K. Singh committed the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act while being on deputation as a Senior Manager in DSIIDC. It has been stated that A-1 S.K. Singh was working as an Assistant Ambulance Officer in Centralised Accident & Trauma Services (CATS), Govt. of NCT of Delhi but he was sent on deputation to DSIIDC. Since, A-1 was a public servant, therefore, sanction to prosecute him was required under Section 19 of The PC Act. The sanction order is on record and the same is Ex.PW2/A. Sh. S.K. Jain, Director, CATS (PW-2) CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 49 of 123 :: 50 ::
is the officer, who accorded the said sanction. He stepped into the witness box and deposed that he awarded the sanction after due application of mind. He stated that he received a report from the CBI along with the statements of witnesses and other relevant documents. He has mentioned that he does not recollect whether the draft sanction order was received from the CBI. He has deposed that he perused all the documents and granted the sanction after due application of mind. The sanction has been challenged primarily on two grounds; (i) that the officer awarding the sanction was not competent to grant it as A-1 was on deputation in a different department; and (ii) that the same was awarded in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
31. Let us first deal with the first ground of challenge that the officer awarding the sanction was not competent to do so. It has been argued by the counsel for A-2 that the official awarding the sanction was not competent to remove the Senior Manager of DSIIDC and therefore, he was not competent to grant the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of The PC Act. The argument is misconceived. It is an admitted case that at the time of commission of offence, A-1 was working on deputation at DSIIDC. The concept of deputation was explained by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Inder Singh 1997 (8) SCC 372 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 50 of 123 :: 51 ::
wherein it was observed as under:
18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning.
"Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post".
32. The Supreme Court has observed in the matter of Umapati Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659 as under:
"8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 51 of 123 :: 52 ::
acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not."
33. In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that where the exigency of public service requires, the parent department (lending authority) can send its employee on deputation to the receiving department (borrowing authority) and such an arrangement is preceded by consensus not only of these authorities but also of the employee who has been sent on deputation. It cannot be concluded that in such a case, there is severance of relationship of the employee with his parent department. In so far as the disciplinary control over the employee is concerned, such control generally vests with the appropriate authority in the parent department in which the substantive appointment is held.
34. In the present matter, the sanction has been awarded by PW-2 S.K. Jain, Director, Centralised Accidents & Trauma Services (CATS), who has deposed that he was competent to remove A-1 from the post held by him in the parent department. He has stated in cross-examination that an employee sent on deputation continues to be an employee of CATS. He has conveyed that although, an employee is sent on deputation but the disciplinary control over him continues to be exercised by CATS. I CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 52 of 123 :: 53 ::
find no reason to disagree with the said explanation. Indeed, there could be a situation where it may be provided by statutory rules or conditions contained in the order of deputation that while an employee is serving on deputation, he or she shall be subjected to disciplinary control of the department to which he or she is deputed but no evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that either of these conditions was existing in the case of A-1. It is established that the sanction was granted by an authority who was competent to remove A-1 from the post held by him in the parent department. The ground of challenge that the sanctioning authority was incompetent to grant the sanction deserves to be rejected.
35. Coming to the second ground of challenge that the sanction was awarded in a mechanical manner. This is a common ground of challenge taken by both the accused persons. It has been argued by the Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 that there is evidence to show that the sanctioning authority was not provided the copies of the recorded conversations and therefore, the sanction became defective as the entire material was not placed before the said authority. I have gone through the detailed testimony of PW-2 S.K. Jain including his detailed cross-examination. He conceded in cross-examination that the copies of the recorded conversations were not placed before him but stated that the transcripts of those CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 53 of 123 :: 54 ::
conversations were forwarded along with the report. He deposed that he perused the report as well as all the documents before according the sanction. It can be seen that the testimony of this witness has remained unblemished. Nothing has come on record during his cross-examination which may demonstrate that the sanction was granted by him in a mechanical manner without due application of mind.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh C. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119 that an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating due application of mind should not be dealt lightly and allowed to be challenged on technicalities. The Apex Court made the following observations:
"16. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the contents of the sanction order. The sanctioning authority has referred to the demand of the gratification for handing over TDS certificate in Form 16A of the Income-tax Act, the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused before the panch witnesses and how the accused was caught red handed. That apart, as the order would reveal, he has fully examined the material documents, namely, the FIR, CFSL report and other relevant documents placed in regard to the allegations and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and, thereafter, being satisfied he has passed the order of sanction. The learned trial Judge, as it seems, apart from other reasons has found that the sanctioning authority has not referred to the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 54 of 123 :: 55 ::
elementary facts and there is no objective material to justify a subjective satisfaction. The reasonings, in our considered opinion, are absolutely hyper- technical and, in fact, can always be used by an accused as a magic trick to pave the escape route. The reasons ascribed by the learned trial Judge appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of sanction. True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused. In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without any iota of hesitation that the approach of the learned trial Judge as well as that of the learned single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve acceptance."
37. I have perused the sanction order in the light of the testimony of PW-2. I am of the considered opinion that the sanctioning authority granted the sanction under Section 19 of The PC Act after due application of mind. The sanctioning authority considered all the documents including the verification memo, handing over memo, transcripts of the conversations recorded on memory cards marked as Q-1 to Q-4 as well as the nature of allegations and thereafter, awarded the sanction. Defence has failed to highlight any infirmity in the sanction order. The sanction is valid and it was duly awarded. Now, let us evaluate the evidence, CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 55 of 123 :: 56 ::
including the testimonies of witnesses, to see if the prosecution has been able to establish the criminal conspiracy and the charge under Section 7 of The PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC.
Facts in Issue
38. The genesis of the trap lies in the previous demand of bribe made by A-1 from the complainant, which became the basis of laying of the trap by the investigating agency. In view of this, it was for the prosecution to prove the demand as well as the acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused persons. The following were the facts in issue;
(a) Around two months prior to lodging of the written complaint dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A), A-1 S.K. Singh came at the shed of the complainant along with some other employees of DSIIDC and threatened him that his shed would be sealed as he is in unauthorised possession. The officials pasted a notice dated 31.12.2021 (Ex.PW3/A) on the shed;
(b) Thereafter, complainant met A-1 S.K. Singh at his office where he demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs and told him that he should meet A-2 Subhash Goel. In this meeting, A-1 wrote the name and mobile number of A-2 on a slip and handed it over to the complainant with CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 56 of 123 :: 57 ::
directions that he should contact him for getting the documents of the shed prepared;
(c) Complainant did not intend to pay the bribe and therefore, he lodged the handwritten complaint (Ex.PW10/A) with the CBI;
(d) The allegations contained in the complaint were verified in terms of verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B respectively);
(e) On 11.02.2022, complainant met A-1 at his office and during this meeting, A-1 reiterated the demand of bribe and told the complainant to contact A-2;
(f) During the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022, complainant contacted A-2 on the mobile number provided by A-1 and was told by A-2 to come on the next day;
(g) After verification of the allegations, FIR was registered on 13.01.2022 and it was decided to apprehend the accused persons red handed;
CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 57 of 123:: 58 ::
(h) A trap was laid on 13.01.2022 and during the trap, A-2 accepted the bribe of Rs.1.70 lakhs from the complainant and informed A-1 that the amount has been received;
(i) A-2 was apprehended red handed and the bribe was recovered from his possession and thereafter, he made a call to A-1 at the instance of the CBI officials disclosing that he has received the bribe and in response thereof, A-1 replied, "theek hai ji (Okay)". Thereafter, A-1 was also arrested on 14.01.2022.
39. In order to prove the above stated facts and establish the demand and acceptance of bribe, prosecution has relied on the testimonies of the complainant Dev Dutt Sharma (PW-12) and three independent witnesses i.e. Vivek Prakash (PW-13), Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) and Sushil Kumar (PW-15). Prosecution has also placed reliance on the telephonic conversations (Q-1 to Q-4)) which were captured during the verification and the trap proceedings. The transcripts of these conversations have been placed on record. In addition to this, prosecution has relied on the testimonies of the expert witnesses for establishing that the handwriting found on the slip was that of A-1 S.K. Singh and CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 58 of 123 :: 59 ::
phenolphthalein powder was detected in the hand washes and table wash of A-2 Subhash Goel. The voice and handwriting of A-1 has been identified by his senior, Mahesh Arora (PW-11) while the voice of A-2 has been identified by his employee, Chanderpal Tomar (PW-18). It is the prosecution's version that the chain of events was documented by preparing relevant memos at each stage of investigation and the same were signed by the complainant and the independent witnesses. The officers who participated in the verification and trap proceedings have been examined to establish the authenticity of these proceedings and the investigating officer has been examined to prove the investigation.
Testimony of Complainant
40. Let us first examine the testimony of the complainant Dev Dutt Sharma (PW-12). He gave a brief background of the manner in which he came to occupy the shed and also deposed about the visit of A-1 S.K. Singh. He deposed that he was running a workshop from the shed for the last 20 years. He mentioned that he purchased the shed against a valid consideration but lost the ownership documents. He disclosed that A-1 used to visit his shed and extend threats to seal the same. He mentioned that A-1 demanded bribe from him for not sealing the shed but since, he did not intend to pay the same, he lodged the complaint with the CBI.
CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 59 of 123:: 60 ::
He mentioned that A-1 initially demanded a bribe of Rs.1 lakh but later on increased it to Rs.2 lakhs. He identified his signatures on the handwritten complaint dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A). He gave an account of verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. He narrated the manner in which a team was constituted for verifying the allegations levelled by him in the written complaint. He stated that in order to verify the demand of bribe, CBI officials called an independent witness, PW-14 Sudesh Kumar, who accompanied him to the office of A-1. He conveyed that PW-10 Insp. Suresh Chander Kushwaha arranged a recorder (DVR) and a blank memory card for the purpose of recording his conversation during the meeting with A-1. He stated that he met A-1 on 11.01.2022 at his cabin and their conversation was captured on the DVR. He mentioned that during the said conversation, the independent witness was not present inside the cabin but he was standing outside. He gave an account of his conversation with A-1.
He mentioned that he requested A-1 not to seal his shed on which, A-1 asked him to meet A-2 Subash Goel and told him that he would prepare the documents of the shed. He mentioned that during this conversation, A-1 asked him to handover the bribe amount of Rs.2 lakhs to A-2 and also handed him over a slip containing the phone number of A-2 with the name 'Subhash' written thereon.
CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 60 of 123:: 61 ::
41. Complainant has deposed further that after the meeting was over, he went back to the vehicle which was parked by the CBI officials near the office of A-1. He mentioned that after returning to the office of CBI, the conversation captured on the DVR was heard in the presence of independent witness and the chip (memory card) was sealed. He identified the slip in the handwriting of A-1 containing the mobile number and name of A-2 as Ex.PW5/D. He conveyed that the record of the verification proceedings was prepared and he signed the same. He identified his signatures on the verification memo (Ex.PW10/A). He mentioned that he left the office of CBI on conclusion of the verification proceedings but was directed by the CBI officials to come again on the next day at around 09:00 AM.
42. Complainant mentioned about reaching the office of CBI on the next day and gave an account of the verification proceedings conducted on 12.01.2022. He deposed that he reached the office of CBI on 12.01.2022 at around 09:00 AM and the independent witness PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was already present at the office. He deposed about the presence of the second independent witness PW-13 Vivek Prakash mentioning that CBI officials introduced him with the said individual. He deposed that the CBI officials produced the recorder (DVR) and inserted a new memory card and CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 61 of 123 :: 62 ::
thereafter, placed it in his pocket. After deposing these events, he recollected that CBI officials directed him to bring the bribe amount of Rs.2 lakhs on 11.01.2022 and he complied with the said directions and handed over a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs to the CBI officials on 12.01.2022. He mentioned that the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs was in the form of currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500 and Rs.2000/-. He stated that the currency notes were counted by the CBI officials and the serial numbers were noted down on a piece of paper. He conveyed that the currency notes were treated with a powder and thereafter, the same were handed over to the independent witness Sudesh Kumar, who counted the same and handed them over to the CBI official. He mentioned that thereafter, his hands were washed and the said water turned pink. He conveyed that after these preparations, he left for Karol Bagh along with the CBI officials. He mentioned that on reaching Karol Bagh, he called on the mobile number mentioned on the slip and A-2 picked up the call and told him that he was not available at the office and he should come on the next day. He conveyed that after this conversation, he returned back to the office of CBI and handed over the DVR as well as the bribe amount to the CBI officials. He identified his signatures on the verification memo dated 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B). He mentioned that after these proceedings, CBI officials directed him to come to CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 62 of 123 :: 63 ::
the office on 13.01.2022.
43. Complainant deposed about the chain of events of 13.01.2022. He stated that he reached the office of CBI at around 09:00 AM and both the independent witnesses were already present over there. He stated that he was handed over the bribe money and he placed the same in his pocket. He conveyed that a memory card was inserted in the recorder (DVR) and the same was placed in his pocket. He deposed that after making these preparations, the members of the trap team proceeded towards the office of A-2 Subhash Goel on two separate vehicles. He mentioned that the independent witness PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was sitting with him while the second independent witness PW-13 Vivek Prakash was accompanying the CBI officials in the other vehicle. He deposed that he went to the office of A-2 along with the independent witness and disclosed him that he had brought a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs on the directions of A-1 S.K. Singh. He stated that he handed over the bribe money to A-2. He conveyed that after handing over the bribe, he made a request to A-2 that he should intimate A-1 about having received the same but instead of doing so, A-2 started counting the money. He mentioned that thereafter, PW-14 Sudesh Kumar called an official of CBI and about 4 - 5 CBI officials arrived at the spot. He deposed that after arriving at the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 63 of 123 :: 64 ::
spot, CBI officials grabbed the wrists of A-2 and took the hand washes in two separate glasses and on each occasion, the solution in the glasses turned red. He disclosed that the solutions were poured in separate bottles and thereafter, a cloth was rubbed on the top of the table and it was also dipped in a solution which turned red. He mentioned that the said solution was also kept in a glass bottle. He deposed that the bribe money was recovered from the possession of A-2. He mentioned that thereafter, on the directions of the CBI officials, A-2 called A-1 on his mobile number and intimated him that he had received the bribe money. He stated that this conversation was made by A-1 by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode. He mentioned that over this conversation, A-1 asked for remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- and he told him that he would give him the balance amount by next week. He identified his signatures on the handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C) as well as the recovery memo dated 13.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/D). He deposed that thereafter, the CBI team returned to the office along with A-2 and the remaining proceedings were carried out till midnight. He identified A-2 as the same person to whom the bribe money was handed over by him.
44. Complainant also mentioned about his participation in the subsequent stages of investigation. He conveyed that after few days CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 64 of 123 :: 65 ::
of the incident, he was summoned to the office of CBI. He stated that during this visit, the conversations captured over the memory cards (Q-1 to Q-4) were heard in the presence of PW-14 Sudesh Kumar and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified his signatures on the voice identification memo Ex.PW12/A. The envelopes containing the memory cards were produced and the witness identified the same as Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/L and Ex.PW12/M. The digital files containing the introductory voices of independent witnesses were played on a laptop and the witness identified the same. In a similar manner, the other digital files containing the recorded conversation were played on a laptop and the same were identified by the witness. The recovered bribe money was produced from the malkhana in a sealed envelope. The envelope was opened in the court and the currency notes were shown to the witness, who identified them as the same currency notes which were recovered from A-2. The currency notes are Ex.PW12/F. The glass bottles containing the solutions were also produced from the malkhana and the witness identified them as the same bottles in which the washes were kept. It can be seen that although the complainant was subjected to a thorough cross-examination but his testimony has remained unimpeached. He has given an exhaustive account of the verification and trap proceedings. He has narrated CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 65 of 123 :: 66 ::
the manner in which A-1 demanded the bribe and directed him to approach A-2 for handing over the same. He has given a detailed account of the recovery and his testimony has remained unshaken.
Testimonies of Independent witnesses
45. The testimony of the complainant finds corroboration from the testimonies of the independent witnesses. Record shows that three independent witnesses were joined at various stages of the investigation; (a) PW-13 Vivek Prakash, who participated in the verification proceedings dated 12.01.2022; (b) PW-14 Sudesh Kumar; who participated in the verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 as well as in the trap proceedings dated 13.01.2022 and (c) PW-15 Sushil Kumar, who participated in the trap proceedings dated 13.01.2022. Each one of them has supported and corroborated the testimony of complainant on all the material aspects. Let us examine the testimonies of these witnesses.
46. PW-14 Sudesh Kumar has deposed about the manner in which he was called at the office of CBI to join the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022. He has deposed that he participated in the verification proceedings on 11.02.2022 and 12.01.2022. He gave a detailed account of the verification and trap proceedings as well as the recovery of bribe. He mentioned that he joined the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 66 of 123 :: 67 ::
complainant in the trap proceedings on 13.01.2022 and the bribe money was accepted by A-2 in his presence. He stated that at the relevant time, he was working as a Manager at Food Corporation of India, Barakhamba Road. He mentioned that he went to the office of CBI on the directions of the Assistant General Manager. He stated that he complied with the directions and reached the office of CBI on 11.01.2022 at about 09:30 AM. He deposed that on reaching the office, a CBI official directed him that he would be required to accompany the complainant to the office of an official who was demanding bribe. He deposed about the preparations made by the CBI officials before sending him and the complainant to the said office. He conveyed that CBI officials switched on a recording device and kept it in the front pocket of the shirt of complainant. He conveyed that although, he accompanied the complainant but he could not enter the cabin of the suspected official (A-1 S.K. Singh) as he was stopped by the guard. He conveyed that complainant went inside the cabin and came out after about half an hour. He stated that after coming out of the cabin, complainant told him that the official had directed him to meet a person at Karol Bagh. He mentioned that complainant showed him a slip on which the name and phone number of the said person was written. He mentioned that thereafter, they went back to the spot where the CBI official had parked their vehicles.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 67 of 123
:: 68 ::
He conveyed that after going back to the office of CBI, the conversation between the complainant and A-1 was played and heard. He identified his signatures on the envelope wherein the memory card was kept and also identified his signatures on the verification memo. He stated that the memory card was sealed in his presence and mentioned that seal after use was handed over to him with directions to bring it on the next day.
47. PW-14 also gave an account of the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022. He mentioned that he brought the seal on the next day and handed over the same to the CBI officials. He stated that on the said day, complainant brought currency notes and the same were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He mentioned that the demonstration about the properties of phenolphthalein powder was given by CBI officials and thereafter, the water solution containing the said powder was thrown away. He stated that the currency notes were put in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. He stated that the CBI officials inserted a new memory card in the recording device (DVR). He mentioned about visiting the office of A-2 along with the complainant. He stated that the CBI officials reached at the spot in two vehicles and after reaching at a spot in Karol Bagh, officials asked the complainant to connect a call on the number mentioned on the handwritten slip. He stated that the complainant CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 68 of 123 :: 69 ::
called on the said number but the person on the other side did not answer the call. He stated that after about 15 - 20 minutes, complainant made a second call on the same number but the said call also remained unanswered. He mentioned that after about 30 minutes, a call was received from the said number on the mobile phone of the complainant. He stated that complainant talked with the individual on the other side by keeping his mobile on speaker mode and the entire conversation was captured on the DVR. He disclosed about the contents of the conversation mentioning that the complainant disclosed to the person that he had arranged a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and the person told him that he would meet him on the next day. He stated that thereafter, the CBI officials and the complainant returned to the office of CBI. He mentioned that after these proceedings, CBI officials returned him the brass seal and directed him to bring it on the next day.
48. PW-14 gave an account of the proceedings of 13.01.2022.
He mentioned that on the said day, he again reached the office of CBI at around 09:30 AM. He stated that the complainant and the second independent witness were already present at the office. He mentioned that the officials of the CBI made preparations by inserting a new memory card in the DVR. He conveyed that complainant brought the currency notes on 12.01.2022 but took CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 69 of 123 :: 70 ::
them back after the proceedings and again brought them back on 13.01.2022. He stated that the details of the currency notes were typed on a paper and his signatures were obtained. He mentioned that the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the same were placed in the pocket of the complainant. He narrated the chain of events mentioning that after reaching at a spot near the office of A-2 at Karol Bagh, complainant made a call on the mobile phone of A-2, who told him that he should come to his office. He stated that this conversation was also made by the complainant by keeping his phone on the speaker mode and the same was captured on the DVR.
49. PW-14 mentioned that he accompanied the complainant to the office of A-2. He stated that complainant met A-2 at his office and disclosed him that he has been sent by A-1 S.K. Singh to handover the bribe money. He stated that on hearing the same, A-2 responded in affirmative by nodding his head and thereafter, the complainant handed him over the bribe money. He stated that on the request of complainant, A-2 started counting the currency notes and in the meantime, he stepped out of the cabin and gave a signal to the members of the trap team by calling on the mobile phone of one of the officials. He stated that on receiving the signal, CBI team arrived at the spot and apprehended A-2. He stated that the hand CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 70 of 123 :: 71 ::
washes of A-2 and the table wash were obtained and on each occasion, the colour of the solution turned pink. He mentioned that documents were prepared at the spot and same were signed by him as well as by the complainant. He mentioned that after these proceedings, the trap team left the spot and reached the office of CBI. He stated about the proceedings carried out at the office of CBI. He mentioned that the memory card was sealed at the office of CBI with the seal which was brought by him and thereafter, the seal was returned to him. He stated that on the next day, he deposited the seal with the CBI. He mentioned about the arrest of A-2 and identified his signatures on various documents such as the arrest memo (Ex.PW14/C), transcript-cum-voice identification memo (Ex.PW11/A) and site plan (Ex.PW14/A). He stated that he again visited the office of CBI during the course of investigation and during this visit, the recorded conversations were played and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified his voice in those conversations and also identified his signatures on the transcripts.
50. Record reveals that PW-14 underwent an extensive cross-
examination but his testimony has remained unimpeached. Defence has failed to bring about any serious contradiction during his cross-examination which may raise question mark over his CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 71 of 123 :: 72 ::
reliability. He has stated various facts during cross-examination which establish that he accompanied the complainant to the office of A-1 on 11.01.2022. He stated in cross-examination that during the visit of 11.01.2022, although, he could not enter the cabin of A-1 but he saw the complainant and A-1 talking to each other through the transparent glass door. He stated various facts which confirm his presence at the office of A-2 on 13.01.2022. He clarified that the currency notes were not placed in the pocket of the complainant on 12.01.2022 and the same were placed in his pocket on 13.01.2022. He reiterated that at the time of entering the office of A-2, no other person was accompanying him except the complainant. He reiterated that after accepting the currency notes from the complainant, A-2 started counting them. He reiterated that he gave signal to the CBI officials on completion of the transaction. He reiterated that the seal after use was handed over to him and the transcripts of the recorded conversations were prepared. On appreciating his testimony, there remains no doubt that he was accompanying the complainant during the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 as well as during trap proceedings on 13.01.2022. The witness has given the actual account of the events and there is no reason to doubt or to disbelieve his version. His testimony provides corroboration to the version of the complainant about his visit to the office of A-1 on CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 72 of 123 :: 73 ::
11.01.2022. His testimony also corroborates the version of the complainant that he handed over the bribe money to A-2 at his office in Karol Bagh.
51. Coming to the testimony of PW-13 Vivek Prakash, who participated in the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022. He has also supported and corroborated the version of the complainant by narrating similar chain of events. He gave a similar account of preparations made at the office of CBI on 12.01.2022 before proceeding to the office of A-2 Subhash Goel. He mentioned that he was introduced with the complainant and the slip (Ex.PW5/D) containing the name of 'Subhash' and a mobile number was also shown to him. He stated that his introductory voice as well as the introductory voice of PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was recorded through the DVR. He mentioned that the CBI team reached Karol Bagh at 02:45 PM and stopped the vehicle at a spot on the road side. He deposed that complainant made two calls on the number written on the slip but the calls remained unanswered. He mentioned that after some time, a call was received by the complainant from the same mobile number and over this call, complainant disclosed the caller that he had been sent by A-1 S.K. Singh and in response, the caller told him that he was not available in the office. He mentioned that the caller further told the complainant that he should come to his CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 73 of 123 :: 74 ::
office on the next day and the caller mentioned that he would be sending his location and tie-up for the meeting. He stated that the entire conversation was recorded over the DVR as the complainant had kept his mobile phone on speaker mode.
52. PW-13 mentioned that after the above stated conversation, complainant called A-1 on his mobile phone and told him that he had fixed a meeting with A-2 on the following day. He mentioned that when the complainant talked about the bribe, A-1 disconnected the call. He mentioned that after returning back to the office of CBI, a copy of the recorded conversation was prepared with the help of 'write blocker'. He mentioned that the recorded conversation was played and heard in his presence as well as in the presence of complainant and the second independent witness. He mentioned that the memory card was taken out from the DVR and it was kept in an envelope. He identified his signatures on the said envelope (Ex.PW12/C) as well as the verification memo dated 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B). The voice recordings were played in the presence of the witness and he identified them to be same recordings which were captured on 12.01.2022. The testimony of PW-13 Vivek Prakash has also remained unimpeached. It can be seen that he has supported and corroborated the statement of the complainant on material aspects. He has given honest and truthful CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 74 of 123 :: 75 ::
account of the events and not tried to exaggerate the facts. The witness has been cross-examined at length but the defence has failed to bring out any material contradiction which may raise question mark over the credibility of this witness.
53. The prosecution's case stands further fortified from the testimony of the third independent witness. PW-15 Sushil Kumar gave a detailed account of the trap proceedings as well as the recovery of bribe. He narrated the chain of events of 13.01.2022 and mentioned about the preparations made by the trap team before proceeding to the office of A-2. He stated that the trap team was constituted by the CBI officials wherein the complainant and another independent witness were joined. He stated that before proceeding for the trap, his introductory voice as well as the introductory voice of the other independent witness was obtained with the help of an instrument (DVR) wherein the memory card was inserted. He mentioned that complainant produced a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and the serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down on a paper. He mentioned that the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration was given about the properties of the said powder. He stated that the currency notes laced with phenolphthalein powder were kept in the left side pocket of the jacket of the complainant and he was directed not to CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 75 of 123 :: 76 ::
touch the said currency notes. He mentioned that personal search of the members of the trap team was carried out and the proceedings were reduced in writing. He identified his signatures on the handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C) wherein all these proceedings were documented.
54. After describing the preparations made at the office of CBI, PW-15 deposed that between 11:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, the trap team proceeded to a spot at Karol Bagh in two vehicles. He gave details of the sitting arrangement in the vehicles mentioning that he was sitting along with the complainant and the other independent witness. He mentioned that while they were proceeding towards the spot, complainant made a call to A-2 Subhash Goel by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode and told him that he has been directed by A-1 S.K. Singh to meet him. He mentioned that complainant asked A-2 about the place of meeting and in response, A-2 conveyed his address and told him that he would be able to meet him at around 01:45 PM. He mentioned that after this conversation, the members of the trap team took lunch and subsequently proceeded to the address disclosed by A-2. He disclosed the manner in which the members of the trap team assembled at a place near the office of A-2 and took position in the adjoining area. He mentioned that the vehicles were parked at some CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 76 of 123 :: 77 ::
distance from the office of A-2 and the investigating officer Insp. Vijay A. Desai instructed the complainant and independent witness PW-14 Sudesh Kumar (wrongly recorded as Sushil Kumar) to go inside the office and give a signal to the trap team on completion of the transaction. He clarified that a recording device was handed over to the complainant. He mentioned that on the directions of the investigating officer, he took position near the main gate of the office of A-2 and the members of the team took position near the office.
55. PW-15 conveyed that complainant and Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) went inside the office of A-2 and after about 5 - 10 minutes, PW-14 gave signal to the investigating officer. He also gave an account of the recovery. He mentioned that on receiving the signal of the independent witness, the members of the trap team went inside the office of A-2 and he also followed them. He disclosed that on entering the office, he saw that A-2 was counting the currency notes. He deposed about the manner in which the hand washes and the table wash were obtained. He mentioned that the solution of one of the hand washes turned pink while the solution of the other hand wash turned light pink. He stated that the solution containing the table wash also turned pink. He mentioned that the washes were packed and sealed separately. He deposed that CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 77 of 123 :: 78 ::
the serial numbers of recovered currency notes were tallied with the serial numbers noted down at the office of CBI and were found to be the same. He disclosed about the phone call made by A-2 to A-1 at the instance of CBI officials. He conveyed that on being directed, A-2 called on the mobile phone of A-1 by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode and conveyed him that he had received the bribe money and in response, A-1 replied, 'okay'. He disclosed that the conversation over this call was captured on the DVR.
56. PW-15 identified his signatures on the handing over memo and conveyed that the proceedings continued at the office of A-2 till midnight. He also identified his signatures on the site plan. He disclosed that the copies of the conversations were prepared. He mentioned that on reaching the office of CBI, he observed that A-1 S.K. Singh was also present over there. He stated that specimen voice samples of A-1 and A-2 were obtained. He mentioned that the specimen handwriting of A-1 was also obtained by the CBI officials. He claimed to have left the office of CBI at around 03:00 AM after completion of the proceedings. He deposed that he also participated in the proceedings dated 18.01.2022, which took place at the office of CBI. He mentioned that on the said date, the conversations captured over the memory cards were played with CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 78 of 123 :: 79 ::
the help of a laptop and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified the sealed bottles (containing the hand washes and table wash), the recorded conversations and the recovered currency notes. He also identified his signatures on the seizure memos (Ex.PW12/L and Ex.PW12/M and Ex.PW15/A) whereby the mobile phones of A-1 and A-2 were seized.
57. Record shows that the testimony of this witness has also remained unblemished. He reiterated in cross-examination that after entering the office, he saw A-2 counting the currency notes.
He stated that he does not recollect whether A-2 was counting the notes with one hand or with both hands. He reiterated in cross- examination that the solution of one of the hand washes turned pink while the other one turned light pink. The cross-examination of this witness goes on to show that he has reiterated most of the facts which were mentioned by him in examination-in-chief. He has withstood a detailed cross-examination but his testimony has remained unshaken.
Tape recorded conversations
58. The testimony of the complainant finds further corroboration from the electronic evidence in the form of tape recorded conversations and the CDRs. It is the case of the prosecution that during the meetings of 11.01.2022 and CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 79 of 123 :: 80 ::
13.01.2022, the conversations were captured on a DVR, which was kept hidden on the person of the complainant. Besides this, the telephonic conversations of 12.01.2022 between the complainant and A-2 Subhash Goel and the complainant and A-1 were also captured on the DVR. The conditions for admissibility of tape recorded statements have been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 Suppl.
SCC 611 as under:-
"(1) the voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. Where the voice is denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker;
(2) The voice of the speaker should be audible and not distorted by other sounds or disturbances;
(3) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence;
(4) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out;
(5) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of evidence; and (6) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe custody."
59. In order to identify the voice of A-1 S.K. Singh, prosecution CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 80 of 123 :: 81 ::
examined his immediate superior. PW-11 Sh. Mahesh Arora, Divisional Manager, DSIIDC deposed that he was controlling and supervising A-1 S.K. Singh during his tenure at CWC Division. He identified the voice of A-1 in all the recorded conversations. The conversation recorded on four files (Q-1 to Q-4) were played in the court and after hearing the same, the witness identified the voice of A-1 in each of these conversations. He also identified the handwriting of A-1 on the slip (Ex.PW5/D). The competence of the witness to identify the voice of A-1 has not been challenged by the accused persons. Similarly, the voice of A-2 Subhash Goel in the tape recorded conversation was duly identified by his employee. PW-18 Sh. Chanderpal Tomar identified the voice of A-2 in all the recorded conversations. His competence to identify the voice has also remained undisputed. The witnesses identifying the voices of A-1 and A-2 deposed that they were called to the office of CBI on 18.02.2022 where all the recorded conversations were heard and the transcripts were prepared. It may be taken that the witnesses who identified the voices of A-1 and A-2 must have heard their voices on multiple occasions during the natural course of events and therefore, they were fully competent to identify the voices. Thus, the first criteria of identification of the voice of the accused persons stands satisfied.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 81 of 123
:: 82 ::
60. The testimonies of the complainant and the officials of the CBI demonstrate that due precautions were taken for recording the conversations. On each occasion, a new memory card was obtained and the introductory voices of the independent witnesses were recorded. The recorded conversations not only contained the actual conversation but also other pieces of background noise which corroborates the chain the events narrated by the complainant. No question mark can be raised over the accuracy of these recorded conversations. Defence has failed to point out any serious shortcoming which may show that there was a possibility of tampering with these voice recordings. The memory card on which the conversations were captured were duly sealed and on each occasion, the seal after use was handed over to an independent witness. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a possibility of tampering with the recorded conversations. The voice recordings are fully reliable and the same can be used for the purpose of corroboration as the conditions enumerated in Ram Singh's case (supra) stand duly fulfilled.
61. The recorded conversations fully support the version of the complainant and the independent witnesses. The relevant transcripts of the recorded conversations have been placed on record. The conversations were also played during the examination CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 82 of 123 :: 83 ::
of the complainant. In the recorded conversations of 11.01.2022, A-1 S.K. Singh can be heard telling the complainant that he should hand over the money (bribe) to his contact at Karol Bagh whose number has already been provided by him. The conversation of the subsequent day i.e. 12.01.2022 between the complainant and A-2 Subhash Goel is also in line with the chain of events narrated by the complainant and the independent witnesses. In the conversation of 13.01.2022, A-2 can be heard convincing the complainant about the bribe by stating, "ek admi ka role nahi hai isme" (thereby conveying that more than one persons were involved in it), "Haan Ji ye puri setting hoti hai inki" (conveying that various other officials were also involved). These conversations provide support and corroboration to the testimonies of the complainant and the independent witnesses.
Call Details Records
62. The testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses find further corroboration from the CDRs. The CDR of the complainant shows that he made and received the calls mentioned by him in his deposition. The CDRs of PW-3 Satish Chandra Verma and PW-4 Gautam Kar provide corroboration to the version of these witnesses that they connected a call to A-1 S.K. Singh from the shed of the complainant. The calls of these officials CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 83 of 123 :: 84 ::
as well as that of complainant stand duly reflected in the CDR of A-1. The CDR of A-2 Subhash Goel provides corroboration to the version of complainant and independent witness that A-2 informed A-1 over a phone call that he has received the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs. It also substantiates the case of the prosecution that after the recovery, A-2 made a phone call to A-1 conveying that he has received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and in response, A-1 replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". It may also be noted that A-1 has not denied these calls in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Opinion of handwriting expert
63. The prosecution has established that the handwriting found on the slip (Ex.PW5/D) was of A-1. PW-11 Mahesh Arora has identified the handwriting of A-1 mentioning that he is acquainted with his handwriting. The CFSL report has also concluded that the handwriting on the slip was of A-1. PW-8 Smt. Alka Gupta, Senior Scientific Assistant, CFSL has given a finding to this effect in the CFSL report Ex.PW8/D. It can be seen that not only the specimen handwriting but also the admitted handwriting of A-1 was sent for comparison with the handwriting on the slip. PW-8 has deposed that she compared these handwritings and came to a conclusion that the slip was written by A-1 S.K. Singh. Her testimony has remained unimpeached. This is an additional fact which CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 84 of 123 :: 85 ::
corroborates the version of the complainant that A-1 wrote the name and the mobile number of A-2 on a slip and told him to contact him. It is noticed that A-1 has also not denied his handwriting on the said slip in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. He has cleverly tried to cover up this fact by mentioning that although, the slip was in his handwriting but it was not handed over by him to the complainant. He has conveyed that he might have handed over the slip to his subordinate but has not explained as to how the slip landed up in the hands of complainant. The reasons are obvious. He has tendered a false explanation to conceal his culpability but has failed to do as there is overwhelming evidence to establish that the slip was prepared and handed over by him only.
Criminal Conspiracy
64. The case of the prosecution revolves around the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused persons. It has been alleged that the offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act was committed by A-1 S.K. Singh in furtherance of the common object of the said conspiracy and A-2 Subhash Goyal played an active role in the conspiracy by accepting the bribe on behalf of A-1. It is a settled law that conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 85 of 123 :: 86 ::
committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct offence for which individual offenders are liable to be punished independent of the conspiracy. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to prove the conspiracy and it is an inference which the prosecution insists on drawing on the basis of the alleged acts committed by the accused persons and the outcome of these acts. Before evaluating the evidence from the angle of conspiracy, it would be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of law and the considerations that are required to be kept in mind for arriving at a finding about the existence of criminal conspiracy.
65. Section 120A of IPC defines "criminal conspiracy" and states that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal, by illegal means such an agreement is designated as "criminal conspiracy". In view of this definition, the gist of the offence is "an agreement to break the law". The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
66. The ingredients of criminal conspiracy and the manner in which the same is required to be established was elaborated by the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 86 of 123 :: 87 ::
Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr. 2000 (8) SCC 203 wherein it was observed that an agreement forms the core of a conspiracy and the conspiracy must surface in the evidence through criminal manifestation. It was observed that just like in all other criminal cases, even for the purpose of establishing a conspiracy, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that a few bits of evidence here and there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy. It was pointed out that the most important ingredient of the offence is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. It was held that in a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not hold them to be conspirators but the later does. It was emphasised that for the offence of conspiracy, some sort of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established, although, the express agreements need not be proved. However, it was pointed out that merely the evidence of transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act would not be sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 87 of 123
:: 88 ::
67. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, it was held as under:
"101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
(emphasis supplied)
68. In the matter of Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156, the Supreme Court of India cautioned that the courts should remain cautious while appreciating the circumstantial evidence to ascertain the existence of criminal conspiracy. It was observed as under :
"45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 88 of 123 :: 89 ::
a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. [Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 27)]"
(emphasis supplied)
69. Since, the conspirators are tried jointly, therefore, in cases of joint trial, there must be cogent and convincing evidence against each of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy as it is difficult in tracing the precise contribution of each member. For the purposes of considering the conduct of the accused so as to deduce about his complicity with the other conspirators, a "rule of caution" has been laid down. In a joint trial care must be taken to separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against others. These words of caution were CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 89 of 123 :: 90 ::
delivered in the matter of State Vs. Nalini 1999 (5) SCC 253 wherein it was observed:
"There is a need to guard against prejudice being caused to the accused on account of the joint trial with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed that "there is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy".
70. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be concluded that the condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must be considered on the anvil of the facts i.e. meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means and the said facts must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish the entire chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the angle of conspiracy. It is equally correct that while drawing an inference from the material brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge of the criminal conspiracy has been proved or not, the court should always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offence has been CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 90 of 123 :: 91 ::
committed and the role played by each of the accused is also relevant to arrive at a finding about criminal conspiracy.
71. Coming back to the present case. It is the common argument advanced by the Counsels of both the accused persons that prosecution has failed to adduce any direct evidence to substantiate that there was any meeting of minds between the public servant and the private individual. It has been further submitted by them that in the absence of direct evidence, the conspiracy could only be established on the basis of such circumstantial evidence as to form a chain of events leading to an irresistible conclusion about their guilt but the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden. The evidence on record, including the statements of witnesses and the documents, need to be evaluated to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge of conspiracy and the substantive offences.
72. On perusing the record, I have reached a conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence to show the meeting of mind between A-1 S.K. Singh and A-2 Subhash Goel. It stands established that complainant contacted A-2 on the basis of the details mentioned in the handwritten slip (Ex.PW5/D). A-1 handed over the said slip to the complainant and told him to handover the bribe to A-2, whose phone number was mentioned on the slip. The CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 91 of 123 :: 92 ::
recorded conversations of 11.01.2022 show that on being told by the complainant that he had managed to arrange a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs, A-1 told him that he should handover the same to the person at Karol Bagh. The recorded conversation of 12.01.2022 shows that after talking to A-2, complainant informed A-1 that he had contacted 'Subhash Ji' who had told him that he would be meeting him tomorrow. In response thereof, A-1 replied 'theek hai' (okay). The recorded conversation of 13.01.2022 demonstrates that A-2 was fully aware that he was accepting the bribe amount on behalf of A-1. In the said conversation, A-2 enquired from the complainant as to when would he pay the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. In response thereof, the complainant assured him that he would be paying the balance amount by the next week. It has also been proved that after accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs, A-2 made a confirmation call to A-1 that the amount has been received to which, he replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". These proved set of circumstances leave no scope for doubt that there was meeting of mind of both the accused persons and they were acting towards the common object of the criminal conspiracy. Each one of them played his role in the conspiracy. A-1 demanded the bribe from the complainant and told him that the amount should be handed over to A-2. A-2 played his role by accepting the bribe on behalf of A-1.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 92 of 123
:: 93 ::
73. In a case of criminal conspiracy, each one of the accused is held accountable for the acts of the other which have been committed in furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy. It stands proved that both the accused persons entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the bribe was received by A-2 on behalf of A-1. As observed earlier, there is evidence to demonstrate that the complainant came in contact with A-2 only on the basis of the phone number provided by A-1. There is evidence to show that A-1 wrote the mobile number and the name of A-2 on the slip and conveyed to the complainant that he should meet that person to hand over the bribe. It was only on the basis of the said slip that complainant called A-2 on 12.01.2022, who told him that he should come on the next day. The complainant went to the office of A-2 on 13.01.2022 on the basis of the address disclosed by him over the phone call of 13.01.2022. On the said day, as per the direction of A-1, complainant handed over the bribe money of Rs.1.70 lakhs to A-2, who not only accepted it on behalf of A-1 but also enquired about the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. During the conversation at his office, A-2 convinced the complainant that he is doing a right thing by paying the bribe and various other officials of the department were in collusion with A-1. A-2 accepted the bribe and thereafter, informed A-1 that the amount has been received and in response, A-1 replied in CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 93 of 123 :: 94 ::
affirmative by saying, "theek hai ji (okay)". The proved chain of facts and circumstances leads to an inescapable conclusion that the accused persons were acting towards the common object of the conspiracy. It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and they were acting towards the common object of the criminal conspiracy.
Demand and Acceptance
74. It is a matter of common understanding that the 'demand' precedes the complaint of corruption. There is evidence to establish that there was a background in which A-1 demanded the bribe from the complainant. Complainant disclosed the said background in his written complaint (Ex.PW10/A) and reiterated the contents of the complaint in his testimony. He has categorically mentioned that A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not taking any action against his shed. He has conveyed that A-1 reiterated the demand during the meeting on 11.01.2022. His deposition stands corroborated from the recorded conversation (Q-1) whose transcripts has been placed on record. It can be seen that during this conversation, A-1 asked the complainant whether he has talked with the person whose number was provided by him. Complainant disclosed in this conversation to A-1 that he has managed to arrange a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and in response thereof, A-1 told CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 94 of 123 :: 95 ::
the complainant that he should pay the same to his contact at Karol Bagh i.e. A-2 Subhash Goel.
75. It is not the requirement of Section 7 of The PC Act that the demand should be always either be expressed or in a specific form. The demand can be expressed by words, gestures, signs, indication or even by adopting a clever methodology so that the purpose of conveying the message is served. The making of demand is a matter of understanding between the person who precedes to pay. The demand may not be direct and categorical by the public person but it should be clearly discernible from the evidence of his conduct. It is also not the requirement of law that the 'demand' must always be proved by direct evidence. The element of demand can also be established by circumstances surrounding the transaction of acceptance or agreement to accept illegal gratification. The inference from the facts and attending circumstances must be natural, probable and based upon the process of intelligent reasoning.
76. The testimony of the complainant, read in the light of the transcripts of the recorded conversation and the background, as narrated by the complainant, establish beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 S.K. Singh demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for not taking any action against his shed. There is CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 95 of 123 :: 96 ::
evidence to show that the officials from the DSIIDC pasted a show cause notice at the shed of the complainant on 31.12.2021. PW-3 Satish Chandra Verma (employee of DSIIDC) has deposed that the said notice was prepared by him at the instance of A-1 and this part of his testimony has gone unrebutted. After the notice was pasted at the shed, complainant met A-1 at his office and during this meeting, A-1 demanded bribe from him for not taking the action. Complainant has mentioned in the written complaint that during this meeting, A-1 demanded the bribe and handed him over a slip containing the name and phone number of A-2 Subhash Goel. It can be seen from the record that complainant again met A-1 during the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022 and in this meeting, A-1 told him that he should hand over the money (bribe) to his contact (Subhash) at Karol Bagh. The testimony of the complainant and the recorded conversation of 11.01.2022 establish this fact. Further, the testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses, read in the light of the recorded conversation of 13.01.2022, establish that A-2 accepted the bribe on behalf of A-1. The recovery stands duly proved. There is evidence to show that after receiving the bribe from the complainant, A-2 called A-1 on his mobile phone and conveyed him that the bribe amount has been received by saying, "ye aye hain 1.7". This conversation was captured over the DVR and forms CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 96 of 123 :: 97 ::
part of Q-3. There is also evidence to establish that after being apprehended, on the directions of the CBI officials, A-2 again called on the mobile phone of A-1 and informed him that the bribe amount has been received and in response thereof, A-1 replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". This conversation forms part of Q-4. Thus, both the ingredients 'demand' and 'acceptance' stand proved.
Interested Witness
77. Counsels for the accused persons have challenged the testimony of the complainant on the ground that he falls under the category of an interested witness. Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel has argued that independent witnesses are perhaps stock witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. There is no substance in the argument that the testimony of the complainant should be disbelieved or discarded on the ground that he is an interested witness. The testimony of a complainant cannot be doubted merely on the ground that he is a person interested in the success of the trap. Indeed, the testimony of the complainant needs to be examined and scrutinised with caution but his testimony cannot be discarded on this ground. More-so, when it does not suffer from any infirmity and also stands corroborated from the other material placed on record. It has been held in the matter of Raju @ Balachandran and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 97 of 123 :: 98 ::
(12) SCC 701:
"... 29 The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulous and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh [AIR 1963 SC 364] and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh [(1976) 4 SCC 369] in the following words: (Sarwan Singh case [ (1976) 4SCC 369, p.3376, para 10) "10 ......The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, to as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of the witnesses has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."
78. The testimony of the complainant does not suffer from any infirmity which may raise doubt over his credibility. He has given an actual account of the incident and not tried to exaggerate the facts. He did not conceal that arrears were due against the shed. He admitted in cross-examination that arrears of Rs.8,88,324/- were due against the shed and he did not pay the licence fee after 09.12.2021. He admitted that on a previous occasion, his neighbour Ram Preet Yadav had lodged a complaint against A-1 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 98 of 123 :: 99 ::
S.K. Singh and he signed the said complaint as an attesting witness. It can be seen from his testimony that he is an honest and truthful witness who has given the actual account of the incident. His testimony inspires confidence and does not suffer from any infirmity. I find no reason to doubt the testimony of such a witness.
Contradictions and discrepancies
79. Much emphasis has been laid by the defence counsels on the discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses. Defence has also pointed out some minor discrepancies and contradictions in the case of prosecution. Counsel for A-2 has pointed out that PW-14 Sudesh Kumar has deposed that the solution of hand washes was poured in a polythene whereas the other witnesses have stated that the said solution was poured into a glass bottle. It has been argued by the counsel that there is evidence to suggest that the CBI officials tried to execute the trap on 12.01.2022 but the trap failed and the officials converted the proceedings into verification proceedings.
He has submitted that there is evidence to show that the complainant brought the currency notes on 12.01.2022 and the same were placed in his pocket on the said day after being treated with phenolphthalein powder. He has mentioned that the complainant as well as the independent witness Sudesh Kumar has CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 99 of 123 :: 100 ::
stated so but the prosecution has tried to project a case that the currency notes were brought by the complainant on 13.01.2022. He has submitted that the prosecution did not correctly record this fact in the verification memo of 12.01.2022 and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said memo.
80. I find no merit in the argument that the testimony of complaint and the independent witnesses should be discarded on account of the above stated contradictions. Indeed, there is a minor discrepancy in respect of the date on which the complainant brought the currency notes but the testimony of the complainant cannot be discarded because of the same. Complainant has deposed that on the directions of the CBI officials, he brought the currency notes to the CBI office on 12.01.2022. PW-14 Sudesh Kumar has also deposed that complainant brought the currency notes on 12.01.2022. It can be seen that there is a minor contradiction in the statement of the complainant and the independent witness about the custody of the currency notes.
Complainant has deposed that the currency notes kept lying with the CBI officials on 12.01.2022 whereas the independent witness has mentioned that the complainant took back the currency notes on 12.01.2022 and brought them again on 13.01.2022. I am of the considered opinion that these contradictions do not affect the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 100 of 123 :: 101 ::
outcome of the trap. The currency notes were used in the trap on 13.01.2022 and therefore, the fact that they were brought by the complainant either on 12.01.2022 or on 13.01.2022 is immaterial.
Similarly, the fact that the currency notes either kept lying with the CBI or were taken back by the complainant on 12.01.2022 is also irrelevant as it has no bearing on the reliability of the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022, which stands duly recorded in handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C). Moreover, the complainant and the independent witnesses have given exact account of the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022 and their testimonies find corroboration from the other material placed on record.
81. Defence has also pointed out some other minor contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and argued that his statement has become doubtful because of the said contradictions. It has been pointed out by the counsel for A-2 that it is the case of prosecution that during the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022, complainant called on the mobile phone of A-2 on two occasions and the calls remained unanswered but after a gap of around 30 minutes, A-2 returned this call and the conversation took place over the said call. Counsel has argued that the testimony of the complainant contradicts this story as he has stated that he called A-2 only once and the conversation took place over the said CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 101 of 123 :: 102 ::
phone call. He has pointed out that the independent witness has deposed that complainant called twice on the mobile phone of A-2 but on each occasion, the call remained unanswered. Counsel has submitted that this contradiction raises question mark over the credibility of the complainant as well as independent witnesses.
82. Indeed, there are some minor contradictions in the statement of the complainant about the number of calls and the date on which the slip (Ex.PW5/D) was handed over to him by A-1 S.K. Singh. It was the prosecution's case that the said slip was handed over by A-1 to the complainant on a prior occasion in a meeting that took place before 11.01.2022 while the complainant has deposed that the slip was handed over to him when he met A-1 during the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022. It can be seen from the record that complainant disclosed in the handwritten complaint (Ex.PW10/A) that A-1 handed him over the slip during a prior meeting at his office. He mentioned in the complaint that he met A-1 at his office a few days prior to the lodging of the handwritten complaint and during the said meeting, the slip was handed over by A-1. Record shows that there is a time gap of around 22 months between the date of incident and the time when the testimony of the complainant was recorded. The incident of handing over of the slip must have taken place somewhere in the month of January, CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 102 of 123 :: 103 ::
2022 (prior to 11.01.2022) whereas the testimony of the complainant was recorded on 30.11.2023. It can be further seen from the record that the complainant is an old man and his testimony was recorded in parts on different dates i.e. 30.11.2023, 16.12.2023, 12.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. In view of these circumstances, minor variations are bound to occur in his testimony due to the time gap and natural lapse of memory. It is settled proposition that minor contradictions do not dent the reliability of a witness, who is otherwise honest and truthful.
83. It is noticed that none of the accused persons has disputed the fact that complainant was carrying a slip containing the name and the mobile number of A-2. Neither A-1 nor A-2 has put even a single question to the witness during cross-examination to challenge the existence of the said slip. It has been established that complainant came in contact with A-2 only through the phone number contained in the slip. Complainant has deposed that he made a conversation on the phone number mentioned in the slip and A-2 told him to come on the next day. It has been proved on record that the phone number mentioned in the slip was that of A-2. The CAF of the mobile number 9810016555 of A-2 (MarkPW7/1) has established the said fact. In these circumstances, the minor contradictions about the number of calls and the date on CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 103 of 123 :: 104 ::
which the slip was handed over to the complainant are inconsequential.
84. It is the settled proposition that minor contradictions and irrelevant details which do not corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions. In appreciating the testimony of a witness, the court is not required to adopt a hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the testimony of a witness. Minor discrepancies of trivial nature that do not touch the core of the case do not affect the credibility of a witness. Similarly, the court is not required to attach much importance to some technical error committed by investigating officer which does not go to the root of the matter. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the decisions in the matters of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48, State Vs. Sarvanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152.
85. The Supreme Court of India cautioned about attaching too much of importance on minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses in the matter of Bharvada Bhoginbhai Hirabhai Vs. State of Gujrat 1983 AIR 753 by making following observations:
"5. ... We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 104 of 123 :: 105 ::
learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 105 of 123 :: 106 ::
accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him--perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
86. It has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of a witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Indeed, there are minor contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses but the same are inconsequential. Defence has failed to point out any serious contradiction or discrepancy in the testimonies of these witnesses which may go to the root of the matter. On appreciating the testimonies of complainant and the independent witnesses, I have reached a conclusion that they have given an honest and truthful account of the verification and the trap CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 106 of 123 :: 107 ::
proceedings. The testimonies of independent witnesses cannot be discarded by categorising them as stock witnesses. The independent witnesses have supported and corroborated the testimony of each other on all the material aspects. The minor discrepancies, as pointed out by the defence counsels, are immaterial.
Report of Chemical Examiner
87. Coming to the argument of the defence counsels about the unreliability of the report of chemical examiner. Defence has questioned the credibility of the CFSL report in respect of the hand washes and table wash. Counsel for A-2 has mentioned that the prosecution has set up a case that after being apprehended, hand washes of A-2 were obtained and the solution of the right hand wash turned pink while the solution of the left hand wash remained colourless. He has submitted that besides the hand washes, the table wash, where the accepted bribe money was allegedly kept by A-2 was also taken and as per the story of prosecution, the said solution also turned pink. He has mentioned that these facts stand recorded in the handing over memo whereas the CFSL has returned a finding that phenolphthalein powder was detected in all the solutions. He has mentioned that this goes on to show that CFSL report has been furnished in a mechanical manner to provide CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 107 of 123 :: 108 ::
legs to the prosecution's case and in view thereof, serious doubts have been casted over the prosecution's story. I do not agree with the said line of reasoning. It can be seen from the record that there is a minor discrepancy between the handing over memo and the testimonies of the spot witnesses in respect of the change of colour of the solution of left hand wash of A-2. Complainant and independent witnesses have deposed that there was a colour change in the solutions of hand washes as well as table wash whereas it stands recorded in the handing over memo that the solution of left hand wash remained colourless.
88. Record shoes that PW-16 Vijay A. Desai (trap laying officer) has deposed in tune with the facts recorded in the handing over memo that the solution of the left hand wash remained colourless while the solutions of the other washes turned pink. On the other hand, the complainant and independent witnesses have deposed that there was a change of colour in the solutions of all the washes. I have considered this discrepancy in the light of the evidence placed on record. It stands proved on record that A-2 was found counting the currency notes at the time when the CBI officials entered his cabin. The complainant, independent witnesses as well as the officials of the CBI have stated so and their testimonies have gone unrebutted on this aspect. It is a matter of common CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 108 of 123 :: 109 ::
understanding that it is not humanly possible to count the stack of currency notes with a single hand. These circumstances indicate that there was a strong likelihood of detecting the phenolphthalein powder in both the hand washes. There is direct ocular evidence to substantiate the prosecution's story that the bribe was recovered from the possession of A-2. In view of this, the discrepancy in the testimonies of the spot witnesses about the change of colour of left hand wash solution does not, in any manner, dents the prosecution's case. Admittedly, the evidence of hand washes and table wash is a corroborative piece of evidence. I am of the considered view that even if this evidence is discarded, still there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the bribe money was handed over to A-2 and the same was recovered from his possession. It may be noted that A-2 has not denied that the complainant was carrying a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs. He has tried to cover up the acceptance by stating that complainant did not hand him over the money but placed it on his table. The fact that after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs, he conveyed about the same to A-1 over a phone call, provides corroboration to the statements of complainant and independent witnesses that the bribe was accepted by A-2. In these circumstance, the evidence of the hand washes is not of much significance. The discrepancy, as pointed out by the defence counsel, has no bearing on the aspect of recovery.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 109 of 123
:: 110 ::
Minor Infirmities in the investigation
89. Defence Counsels have also pointed out some minor infirmities in the investigation. It has also been argued by them that there is an inordinate delay in the registration of FIR. Counsels have submitted that although, the verification proceedings were concluded on 12.01.2022 but the FIR was registered on 13.01.2022 and no explanation has been tendered for the said delay. Besides this, it has been mentioned by the Counsel for A-2 that although, there is evidence to suggest that the rough transcripts of the tape recorded conversations were prepared but the same were not placed on record. He has also raised question mark over the manner in which the specimen voices were obtained. He has contended that no reliance can be placed on the recorded conversation as the specimen voice was not obtained in the prescribed manner. He has also argued that the Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) was not competent to carry out the verification in terms of Section 17 of The PC Act. He has argued that at the time of carrying out the verification proceedings, Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) was posted as a Sub-Inspector in CBI and therefore, he was not competent to carry out the investigation under Section 17 of The PC Act, which mandates that the investigation cannot be carried out by an officer below the rank of an Inspector. Counsel for A-1 has also pointed out similar infirmities in the investigation. He has CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 110 of 123 :: 111 ::
mentioned that the voice recordings do not contain the concluding voice of the independent witnesses and therefore, the same are not reliable. I find no substance in these arguments.
90. The Prevention of Corruption Act was intended to make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. The provisions of the Act must receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decisions in the matters of State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 and R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 CC 183.
91. The argument that the Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) was not competent to carry out the verification proceedings has no merit. Section 17 of the PC Act prescribes that in the case registered by CBI, the investigation shall not be carried out by a police officer below the rank of an Inspector. It can be seen from the record that Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) has only CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 111 of 123 :: 112 ::
carried out the verification proceedings but the investigation has been carried out by Vijay A. Desai (PW-16), who was an Inspector in CBI. In view of this, the argument that the investigating officer was not competent to carry out the investigation deserves to be rejected. Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) has deposed that the Superintendent of Police, CBI introduced him to the complainant and marked him the complaint for verification. In view thereof, he carried out the verification proceedings on 11.02.2022 and submitted the verification report to his supervising officer. He has deposed that on the directions of the supervising officer, he carried out further verification proceedings on 12.02.2022 and again submitted the report to the supervising officer. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the investigation was assigned to Vijay A. Desai (PW-16), who was on the rank of an Inspector. In view of this, the argument about the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 17 of The PC Act deserves to be rejected. No prejudice has been caused to the accused persons merely because the verification proceedings have been carried out by a Sub-Inspector of CBI.
92. The argument about the irregularity in obtaining the specimen voices also does not hold ground. It can be seen that the specimen voice of A-1 was taken in the presence of the independent witnesses. The memory card on which the specimen CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 112 of 123 :: 113 ::
voice was obtained was duly sealed and the seal, after use, was handed over to the independent witness. The independent witness has deposed that the specimen voice was obtained in his presence and the memory card was duly sealed. The voice of A-1 has been identified by his superior Mahesh Arora (PW-11) not on the basis of specimen voice but on the basis of the actual recorded conversations and the competence of this witness to identify the same has not been challenged. In these circumstances, the argument about the irregularity in collecting the voice sample loses relevance.
Delay in registration of FIR
93. There is no content in the argument that the prosecution case should be doubted merely because there is delay in registration of FIR. It is an admitted case of prosecution that the verification proceedings were concluded on 12.01.2022 whereas FIR came to be registered on the next day on 13.01.2022 at 10:00 AM. The delay in lodging of an FIR cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution nor could it be treated as fatal for the prosecution's case. The court has to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In case, the causes are not attributable to concoct a version, mere delay by itself would not be fatal to the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 113 of 123 :: 114 ::
prosecution's case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decisions in the matters of Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690 and Hari Prasad @ Kishan Sahu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh Neutral Citation 2023 INSC 986.
94. In the present matter, after the allegations levelled by the complainant were confirmed from the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022, no effective proceedings could have been done after the conclusion of the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022 as A-2 had directed the complainant to meet him on the next day. In view of this, it cannot be concluded that the delay gave any opportunity to the investigating agency for any possible concoction of a false version. The delay cannot be considered as fatal for the prosecution's case. Similarly, the minor infirmities in the investigation, pointed out by the defence counsels, also do not affect the outcome of the trial. It has been held in the case of Paras Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar 1999 (2) SCC 126, as under:
"8. .. the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court from the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, J.T. (1998) 3 SC 290.CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 114 of 123
:: 115 ::
"In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
95. The above stated view point was reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in a recent decision in the matter of Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 28 wherein, it was observed that principle of law is crystal clear that on account of defective investigation, the benefit will not inure to the accused on that ground alone and it is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence gathered by the prosecution including the testimony of eye witnesses and other relevant material. It was observed in this matter that an accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.
96. The evidence placed on record suggests that the investigation could have been done in a more meticulous manner but this in itself cannot be a ground to discard the other evidence collected by the investigating agency. The testimonies of the complainant and the independent witnesses establish the aspect of CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 115 of 123 :: 116 ::
'demand' as well as the 'acceptance' of the bribe. The testimonies of the officials of DSIIDC have not only provided corroboration to the statement of the complainant but also substantiated the prosecution's story. The reports of the handwriting expert and the chemical examiner have provided further corroboration to the statement of the complainant. The tape recorded conversations have also corroborated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The CBI officials have also corroborated the testimony of the complainant by deposing exactly on the same lines. They have given a similar account of the verification and trap proceedings. They have also supported the recovery.
No Adverse inference
97. It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to examine all the CBI officials who participated in the trap proceedings and therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn. I do not find force in these submissions. The prosecution's case cannot be disbelieved merely because it has not examined all the members of the trap team. It is the settled proposition that it is the quality of evidence which is relevant in criminal trial and not the quantity. There is no rule of evidence that the prosecution needs to examine all the witnesses who have witnessed an incident. The prosecution has examined the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 116 of 123 :: 117 ::
complainant as well as independent witnesses who were present at the spot during the trap proceedings. In addition to this, two CBI officials, who were member of the trap team have also been examined. These witnesses have given a detailed account of the incident and each one of them has been cross-examined at length. In these circumstances, there appears to be no reason to draw an adverse inference merely because the prosecution has not examined all the CBI officials.
Foundational facts stands proved
98. It is proved from the evidence placed on record that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. Once these foundational facts are established, presumption under Section 20 of The PC Act invariably arises to the effect that bribe was accepted by accused as a motive or reward for giving favour in the matter in which complainant has been interested. The presumption is of law and has to be rebutted by proof and not just by explanation which may seem to be plausible, although, the test of strict proof may not be required.
99. It has been held in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000 (8) SCC 571:
CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 117 of 123:: 118 ::
"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted 'as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premises that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it."
100. In the case B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 2006 (12) SCC 277, it has been held by Supreme Court :
"When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case ...."
Defence taken by accused persons
101. The accused persons have put forward a stereotype defence that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The defence taken by A-1 is not only unbelievable but also absurd. A-1 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 118 of 123 :: 119 ::
came up with a story that complainant was in huge arrears of licence fee and he falsely implicated him to avoid the payment. I fail to understand as to how the complainant would have succeeded in avoiding the payment of the licence fee by implicating A-1 in the present case. Indeed, there is evidence to show that DSIIDC has not recovered the arrears of licence fee from the complainant but there is nothing on record to show that the department was impeded to recover the arrears on account of the present case. It is a matter of common understanding, which the complainant might be surely aware of that any other officer of DSIIDC could have continued with the proceedings of recovering the licence fee even after the arrest of A-1. In such circumstances, the stereotype defence of false implication deserves to be rejected.
102. Record shows that accused persons took the line of defence during the trial that complainant approached A-2 for preparing the documents of the shed. The answers given by the accused persons in the questions put to them in the statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. also point in that direction. A-2 did not dispute that on 13.01.2022, complainant brought a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs at his office. He has conveyed that he was under an impression that the said amount was the consideration for preparing the documents of the shed. A-1 has admitted in his CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 119 of 123 :: 120 ::
testimony as a defence witness that A-2 was known to him. He has tried to convey that A-2 used to help him in recovering the arrears of licence fee from various allottees of sheds. He has admitted having met the complainant at his office in the month of January, 2022. He has admitted that he referred the complainant to A-2. He has conveyed that in the meeting at his office, he told the complainant that A-2 could be helpful in preparing the documents of the shed. He has deposed that he told the complainant that A-2 can take out the date of the allotment letter from the old list at the office of his Association. He has deposed that he told the complainant that A-2 can be found present at the flatted factory complex at Karol Bagh. He has admitted having received the call of the complainant on 12.01.2022 and the call of A-2 on 13.01.2022. He has also admitted his conversation with PW-3 Satish Chandra Verma on 11.01.2022. He has admitted that A-2 disclosed him over the phone call of 13.01.2022 that he has received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs. He has conveyed that there was nothing unusual about this call as A-2 often used to give him such information after receiving the arrears from the shed owners.
103. It is apparent from the testimony of A-1 that he has hopelessly tried to cover up his guilt by presenting an illogical explanation. In what capacity, A-2 was collecting the arrears of CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 120 of 123 :: 121 ::
licence fee on behalf of DSIIDC? In what capacity he would have prepared the documents of the shed of the complainant as he was neither the owner nor the registered allottee of the said shed? On the one hand, A-1 has deposed that on the information given by A-2 that he had received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs, he got an impression that the amount has been received towards the arrears of the shed, while on the other hand, A-2 has deposed that he was under an impression that the amount was a consideration for preparing the documents. It is not possible to reconcile these contradictory versions. The reasons are obvious. The accused persons are trying to project a false story to wriggle out of their wrong but they have failed to do so. It can be seen that after A-2 conveyed A-1 that he has received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs, A-1 made no further enquiries from him and simply replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". This goes on to show that there was a meeting of mind between both the accused persons. A-2 fully knew at the time of accepting the money that he was accepting it as a bribe on behalf of A-1. On receiving the telephonic message from A-2, A-1 was fully aware and certain that the bribe money has been received and it was because of this reason that he did not make any further enquiries from A-2.
104. It can be seen that A-1 has tried to cleverly cover up the CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 121 of 123 :: 122 ::
verification as well as the trap proceedings but while doing so, he has almost admitted the entire case of the prosecution. He admitted his meeting with the complainant and also admitted that during this meeting, he disclosed the complainant about A-2. He admitted that he had written the phone number and the name of A-2 on a slip but deposed that the same was not handed over by him to complainant. He stated that the complainant might have got hold of the said slip from his subordinate. He admitted that a conversation took place between him and the complainant on 11.01.2022. He admitted that complainant made him a phone call on 12.01.2022 and informed him that A-2 was not present at his office. He also admitted that after receiving the bribe money, A-2 connected a call to him and disclosed him over this call that he had received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and he replied, "theek hai ji (okay)". The admissions can be found in his testimony recorded as DW-1. The admissions serve as an addition piece of evidence to corroborate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and further fortifies the conclusion that A-1 committed the alleged offence.
Conclusion
105. In view of the discussion made in the aforesaid paras, I have reached a conclusion that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 S.K. Singh, a public servant and A-2 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 122 of 123 :: 123 ::
Subhash Goel, a private individual, hatched a criminal conspiracy to demand and accept bribe from the complainant and acting in furtherance of the said conspiracy, A-1 committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC. It has been established that A-1 demanded the bribe from the complainant which was accepted on his behalf by A-2. Explanation-2(ii) of Section 7 of The PC Act clarifies that it shall be immaterial whether the public servant obtains or accepts the undue advantage directly or through a third party. The judgments relied upon by the accused persons are distinguishable as the facts of the present case are on different footing and there is overwhelming evidence to establish the charges. Thus, the charges stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. A-1 S.K. Singh and A-2 Subhash Goel stand convicted for committing an offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 of The PC Act and A-1 S.K. Singh also stands convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act.Digitally signed
Announced in the open court by SUDHANSHU SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK KAUSHIK on this 29th day of May, 2025 Date: 2025.05.29 15:22:22 +0530 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Special Judge (PC Act)/ CBI-11 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi 29.05.2025 CC No. 45/22 CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 123 of 123